Re: [PATCH 2/3] net: Restore printing of the help text with "-nic help"

[Claudio Fontana <cfontana@suse.de>]

On 11/10/22 12:35, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 08/11/2022 10.43, Claudio Fontana wrote:
>> On 11/8/22 09:59, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>> On 08/11/2022 09.52, Claudio Fontana wrote:
>>>> On 11/8/22 09:42, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>>>> On 07/11/2022 13.27, Claudio Fontana wrote:
>>>>>> should -net and -netdev be adapted too?
>>>>>
>>>>> "-netdev help" already works just fine ... and "-net" should IMHO rather be
>>>>> removed than improved ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>     Thomas
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if it could be done once for all, in net_init_clients,
>>>> instead of repeating the is_help_option in net_init_netdev and net_param_nic
>>>> (and that would take care of net_init_client too, so we'd get "net" for free)..
>>>
>>> I don't think that it makes too much sense to have one option for all -
>>> since all three CLI options are slightly different anyway. E.g. "-net nic"
>>> only exists for "-net", "hubport" cannot be used with "-net", "-nic" can
>>> also be used to configure the NIC model, etc.
>>>
>>>    Thomas
>>>
>>
>> Hi Thomas, I would not suggest to merge everything together,
>>
>> I was considering whether it would make sense to just check the "type" id for is_help_option
>> once, since all the options "net", "netdev", "nic" have a "type" implied_opt_name,
>>
>> and so it should be possible to make a list of structs that signify what to do for "net", "netdev", "nic", and
>> loop on that and check for that help string once,
>>
>> and then split off the codepath into the "net", "netdev", "nic" - specific code as it is now,
>> either manually or by storing the function that is now in the foreach as a function pointer in the struct, ie moving the is_help_option check one level up.
>>
>> However, it might not be worth it since it seems that for "nic" the nic models need to also be printed, so it might make things needlessly verbose.
>>
>> Not sure, have not tried to write the code for it.
> 
> Sorry, I currently fail to see how that should really work out nicely, so 
> I'll continue with my current patch. But feel free to write some patches, 
> maybe it's clearer to me if I see the code.
> 
>   Thomas
> 

No worries, maybe it's just too complex and not worth it.

Ciao,

C