On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 05:36:38PM +0200, 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. Adding the policy to docs/qemukvm-compat-commands-policy.txt should workaround that problem. And a friendly text on the announce e-mail. > Andreas > > > - keep them until we rework the whole command line > > > > Jan > > -- 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
