On 10/25/2012 03:03 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote: > > While I agree that this design is broken I don't think we can do this. > Okay, for now we only support 0; but what if in the future we invent a > new flag? With current virsh one is able to use it however with your > patch he isn't. But you could apply that argument to any number of other interfaces that take a flags argument. virsh simply does not know how to export arbitrary flags that were only added to newer servers - you HAVE to upgrade your virsh to match. > > Therefore I'd rather see slightly different approach. Like we do for > other broken options/arguments in virsh - hide it, don't mention it > anywhere but keep the code. I disagree - there's no point in keeping a hidden argument. It is a disservice to users to make them have to pass a numeric flags value - if they know they are talking to a new enough server that supports a new flag, then they should be able to upgrade to a new enough virsh that exposes that new flag as a human-readable option name, or directly code their task using C or python bindings instead of bothering with virsh. I think the patch is fine as-is. -- Eric Blake eblake@xxxxxxxxxx +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list