From: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@redhat.com>,
Peter Krempa <pkrempa@redhat.com>,
QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] machine: add missing doc for memory-backend option
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 14:51:23 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210120145123.06a853bf@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA843rP6rvktc0FSZEjK8C9E8h_5_PbCBUXYM4XJRE7KHQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 10:02:04 +0000
Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 at 23:48, Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Add documentation for '-machine memory-backend' CLI option and
> > how to use it.
> >
> > And document that x-use-canonical-path-for-ramblock-id,
> > is considered to be stable to make sure it won't go away by accident.
>
> That's not what the x- prefix is supposed to mean.
> If we have an internal constraint that we mustn't delete
> the option in order to support some other must-be-stable
> interface (eg migration of some machines) we can document
> that in a comment,
that was in v1, and Peter asked for adding assurance to help/doc as well.
> but that doesn't mean that we should
> document to users that direct use of an x-prefix option
> is supported as a stable interface.
A concur, that we don't have to declare it as stable in help/doc,
but we still have to document x-use-canonical-path-for-ramblock-id=off
the so users would know how/when to use it in this particular case.
> Alternatively, if the option is really stable for direct
> use by users then we should commit to making it so by
> removing the x-.
Peter Maydell,
I think Peter Krempa already explained/pointed to discussion why
x-use-canonical-path-for-ramblock-id wasn't renamed.
So as I see options are:
1) keep x- prefix declare it as stable both in doc and comments (like in this patch)
add to commit message why we are keeping x-
2) keep x- prefix declare it as stable in comments only,
keep doc changes to explaining how/when to use it
add to commit message why we are keeping x-
3) rename/drop x- prefix and don't care about QEMU-5.0-5.2
(libvirt would use old syntax (-mem-path/mem-prealloc) for them
which also leads to => no virtiofs as it needs shared RAM that
new syntax with backend provides for main RAM)
Which one is acceptable to you?
> thanks
> -- PMM
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-01-20 13:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-01-14 23:46 [PATCH v2] machine: add missing doc for memory-backend option Igor Mammedov
2021-01-15 9:36 ` Michal Privoznik
2021-01-20 10:20 ` Igor Mammedov
2021-01-15 10:02 ` Peter Maydell
2021-01-15 10:43 ` Peter Krempa
2021-01-15 10:56 ` Peter Krempa
2021-01-20 13:51 ` Igor Mammedov [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210120145123.06a853bf@redhat.com \
--to=imammedo@redhat.com \
--cc=mprivozn@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peter.maydell@linaro.org \
--cc=pkrempa@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.