Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] Add cache=volatile parameter to -drive

[Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>]

Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 05/17/2010 11:23 AM, Paul Brook wrote:
>>>> I don't see a difference between the results. Apparently the barrier
>>>> option doesn't change a thing.
>>>>        
>>> Ok.  I don't like it, but I can see how it's compelling.  I'd like to
>>> see the documentation improved though.  I also think a warning printed
>>> on stdio about the safety of the option would be appropriate.
>>>      
>> I disagree with this last bit.
>>
>> Errors should be issued if the user did something wrong.
>> Warnings should be issued if qemu did (or will soon do) something
>> other than
>> what the user requested, or otherwise made questionable decisions on the
>> user's behalf.
>>
>> In this case we're doing exactly what the user requested. The only
>> plausible
>> failure case is where a user is blindly trying options that they
>> clearly don't
>> understand or read the documentation for. I have zero sympathy for
>> complaints
>> like "Someone on the Internet told me to use --breakme, and broke
>> thinks".
>>    
>
> I see it as the equivalent to the Taint bit in Linux.  I want to make
> it clear to users up front that if you use this option, and you have
> data loss issues, don't complain.
>
> Just putting something in qemu-doc.texi is not enough IMHO.  Few
> people actually read it.

So what exactly is the conclusion here? I really want to see this
getting merged.


Alex