[PATCH v2 0/5] qemu_passt: Fix issues with PID file

[Stefano Brivio]

On Mon, 20 Feb 2023 09:38:05 +0100
Stefano Brivio <sbrivio at redhat.com> wrote:

> Michal,
> 
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 13:51:42 +0100
> Michal Prívozník <mprivozn at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 2/16/23 17:35, Laine Stump wrote:  
> > > On 2/16/23 8:32 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:    
> > >> This is a v2 of:
> > >>
> > >> https://listman.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2023-February/237731.html
> > >>
> > >> diff to v1:
> > >> - Merged patches that were ACKed in v1,
> > >> - Dropped 4/4 from the original series (the one that sets --foreground),
> > >>    and implemented a different approach
> > >>
> > >> Michal Prívozník (5):
> > >>    qemu_passt: Avoid double daemonizing passt
> > >>    qemu_passt: Report passt's error on failed start
> > >>    qemu_passt: Make passt report errors to stderr whenever possible
> > >>    qemu_passt: Deduplicate passt killing code
> > >>    qemu_passt: Let passt write the PID file    
> > > 
> > > This is everything that was in the patch I sent last week, with the
> > > following additions
> > > 
> > > 1) adding NULLSTR() around the reference to errbuf in patch 2/5
> > > 
> > > 2) adding "--stderr" to the commandline in patch 3/5 (which I found to
> > > be unnecessary in my testing - as Stefano says everything goes to stderr
> > > until passt has completed its init anyway)
> > > 
> > > 3) the other bit of patch 3/5 which adds an extra message telling the
> > > user to look into the designated logfile for the error - this is
> > > unnecessary (and actually now counter-productive, as it forces you to
> > > look elsewhere for the error when you wouldn't have needed to) because
> > > of patches I've sent to passt.
> > > 
> > > 4)  patch 4/5 that is a cleanup de-duplicating code
> > > 
> > > 5) patch 5 changes additional code (that I didn't touch in my patch) to
> > > use virPidFileReadPath() instead of virPidFileReadPathIfLocked(), and
> > > virProcessKillPainfully() instead of the higher level
> > > virPidFileForceCleanupPath().
> > > 
> > > So it all seems fine (except the error reporting stuff), but why revert
> > > a patch only to push back the same changes in a deconstructed fashion
> > > plus some fixups, rather than just posting a followup or two?    
> > 
> > Yeah, I realized this too and I'm sorry. My original intention was to
> > fix this in a completely different way (as my last patch from v1
> > demonstrates) and that was incompatible with yours.  
> 
> How do you want to proceed? Laine's series to improve error reporting in
> passt is included in:
> 
> - passt version 2023_02_16.4663ccc
> - Debian and Ubuntu packages 0.0~git20230216.4663ccc, pending upload
> - Fedora and CentOS Stream packages passt-0^20230216.g4663ccc-1
>   (stable: fc38, fc39, eln126, testing: fc36, fc37)
> 
> I guess either an updated patch from Laine with your refinements or an
> updated series from you would work...? Thanks,

Ah, I see you just pushed your series...

-- 
Stefano