On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 07:16:35AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > 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. +1 Dave > -- > Eric Blake eblake@xxxxxxxxxx +1-919-301-3266 > Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org > > -- > libvir-list mailing list > libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list