> -----Original Message----- > From: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2023 7:26 PM > To: Zhang, Chen <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Zhang, > Hailiang <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] configure: add --disable-colo-filters option > > On 20.04.23 12:09, Zhang, Chen wrote: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <[email protected]> > >> Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2023 6:53 AM > >> To: [email protected] > >> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; > >> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > Zhang, > >> Hailiang <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > >> [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; > >> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > >> [email protected]; Zhang, Chen <[email protected]>; > >> [email protected]; Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy > >> <vsementsov@yandex- team.ru> > >> Subject: [PATCH v2 4/4] configure: add --disable-colo-filters option > >> > >> Add option to not build COLO Proxy subsystem if it is not needed. > > > > I think no need to add the --disable-colo-filter option. > > Net-filters just general infrastructure. Another example is COLO also > > use the -chardev socket to connect each filters. No need to add the -- > disable-colo-chardev.... > > Please drop this patch. > > I don't follow your reasoning. Of course, we don't need any option like this, > and can simply include to build all the components we don't use. So "no > need" is correct for any --disable-* option. > Still, I think, it's good, when you can exclude from build the subsystems that > you don't need / don't want to maintain or ship to your end users.
Yes, I agree with your idea. > > In MAINTAINERS these two filters are in "COLO Proxy" susbsystem. Is it > correct? What's wrong with adding an option to not build this subsystem? I > can rename it to --disable-colo-proxy. The history is COLO project contributed QEMU filter framework and filter-mirror/redirector...etc.. And the "COLO Proxy" susbsystem covered the filters do not means it belong to COLO. So, It is unreasonable to tell users that you cannot use filter-mirror/rediretor for network debugging Or other purpose because you have not enabled COLO proxy. > > > But for COLO network part, still something need to do: > > You can add --disable-colo-proxy not to build the net/colo-compare.c if it > > is > not needed. > > This file just for COLO and not belong to network filters. > > net/colo-compare.c is used only only for COLO, which in turn used only with > CONFIG_REPLICATION enabled, see patch 3. So, no reason to add separate > option for it, it should be disabled with --disable-replication. Yes, and as Lukas said, COLO is the only user for the filter-rewriter currently. It is more appropriate to add filter-rewriter replace the filter-mirror here. I saw the patch 3, it is better to move it to this patch. Thanks Chen > > -- > Best regards, > Vladimir
