On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 03:00:23PM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 03:19:17AM -0800, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 11:32:48AM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> > > > > If we want to introduce a new element, perhaps it could look like
> > > > > this:
> > > > >
> > > > >   <loader type='rom'>/usr/share/edk2/ovmf/OVMF.qemuvars.fd</loader>
> > > > >   <varstore type='uefi-vars'>
> > > > >     <template path='/usr/share/edk2/ovmf/OVMF_VARS.qemuvars.json'/>
> > > > >     <source path='/path/to/guest.json'/>
> > > > >   </varstore>
> > >
> > > >   <loader type='rom'>/usr/share/edk2/ovmf/OVMF.qemuvars.fd</loader>
> > > >   <varstore template='/usr/share/edk2/ovmf/OVMF_VARS.qemuvars.json'
> > > > path='/path/to/guest.json'/>
> > >
> > > <varstore template='...'>/path/to/guest.json</varstore> ?
> > >
> > > Following what we are doing for nvram ...
> >
> > That would rule out extending with sub-elements later:
> >
> >   <varstore template='...'>
> >     /path/to/guest.json
> >     <db>...</db>
> >   </varstore>
> >
> > is not valid XML.
>
> Ah, ok.  Clearly I'm not an XML expert ;)
>
> I like your second version more because it is at least closer to nvram
> and (hopefully) easier to remember.

Hopefully firmware autoselection will take care of picking the right
values in 99% of scenarios and users won't have to worry about it at
all. But I like the second version better myself, it's less verbose.

> > There's no hard and fast rule so often it's down to the taste of
> > whoever introduces the new element/attribute. Having to go through
> > review normalizes this to some extent, but ultimately what we have
> > today is just the result of a schema growing organically over 20
> > years while maintaining full backwards compatibility :)
>
> So, just continue that scheme and pick what you personally prefer?

Right, but I don't necessarily want to spend the time reworking the
series only to see the XML design rejected again afterwards, so I
figured I'd try to get feedback ahead of time.

Let's give it a couple more days. If I don't hear anything by next
Monday, I'll assume other folks are okay with the options that the
two of us like and implement it :)

Thanks!

-- 
Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization

Reply via email to