Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] qemu-options.hx: Document hmat-lb and hmat-cache order

[Markus Armbruster]

Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@redhat.com> writes:

> On 6/15/20 10:02 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@redhat.com> writes:
>>
>>> To simplify internal implementation the hmat-cache parsing code
>>> expects hmat-lb to be already parsed. This means, that hmat-lb
>>> arguments must come before hmat-cache. Document this restriction
>>> so that management applications can follow it.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>>   qemu-options.hx | 3 +++
>>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/qemu-options.hx b/qemu-options.hx
>>> index b1a399079a..3fe9e6d6a0 100644
>>> --- a/qemu-options.hx
>>> +++ b/qemu-options.hx
>>> @@ -319,6 +319,9 @@ SRST
>>>       'none/direct(direct-mapped)/complex(complex cache indexing)'. policy
>>>       is the write policy. line is the cache Line size in bytes.
>>>   +    Please note, that due to internal implementation, '\
>>> ``hmat-cache``\ '
>>> +    must be configured only after '\ ``hmat-lb``\ ' option.
>>> +
>>>       For example, the following options describe 2 NUMA nodes. Node 0 has
>>>       2 cpus and a ram, node 1 has only a ram. The processors in node 0
>>>       access memory in node 0 with access-latency 5 nanoseconds,
>>
>> What happens when we do it wrong?
>>
>
> We error out.
>
> https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2020-05/msg08409.html

Good.

>> Can we catch doing it wrong somehow?  I figure that would be much better
>> than merely documenting it.
>>
>
> Sure, but that would require some more code (according to Igor's
> e-mail and discussion linked from the linked document). And frankly,
> to libvirt it doesn't matter. For everybody else, let's document it at
> least and if somebody ever writes the missing piece we can remove the
> restriction from the docs.

Misunderstanding.  By "catch doing it wrong", I mean "error out when
hmat-cache is configured before hmat-lb".  I understand we do that.

Avoiding the restriction entirely would be even better, but the
maintainer obviously decided it was not worth the trouble.  I gladly
defer to the maintainer here.

Given the general undocumentedness of similar restrictions elsewhere, I
can't bring myself to care for documenting this one.  Up to the
maintainer.