On 2012-10-04 17:36, Andreas Färber wrote: > Am 04.10.2012 16:30, schrieb Jan Kiszka: >> On 2012-10-04 16:21, Anthony Liguori wrote: >>> -no-kvm should be included too. >> >> Reminds me that we still need to agree on the final default accel strategy. >> >>> >>> I just ran across a user that was injecting '-no-kvm-irqchip' in their >>> libvirt XML via a custom attribute. It turned out it was to work around >>> broken MSI support in their funky guest they were running. It was the >>> wrong solution to the problem but they were doing it regardless. >>> >>> The point is, there are users in the wild using these options. There's >>> no reason to remove them if they are trivial to maintain (and they are >>> in their current form). >> >> So let's define a consistent policy for them all: >> - warn on the command line on use > >> - avoid adding them to the help or other user documentation > > That's dangerous - at some point someone will notice and propose a patch > documenting them and the reviewers may have forgotten by then why it was > not documented in the first place. Better clearly document them in help > output as "DEPRECATED, to be removed in future versions" or so. -M is marked as deprecated in the file that you would have to mess up. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SDP-DE Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
