From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43089)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <armbru@redhat.com>) id 1aqNWL-0002Qh-Fj
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:20:02 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <armbru@redhat.com>) id 1aqNWI-0006sE-Aw
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:20:01 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:37072)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <armbru@redhat.com>) id 1aqNWI-0006s8-6Y
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:19:58 -0400
From: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
References: <1460102035-15972-1-git-send-email-mst@redhat.com>
	<87twjcvz7o.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org>
	<20160409200141-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com>
	<8760voo18x.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org>
	<20160411142509-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com>
	<8760vlq3yg.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org>
	<20160413173957-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 18:19:55 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20160413173957-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> (Michael
	S. Tsirkin's message of "Wed, 13 Apr 2016 17:44:20 +0300")
Message-ID: <87d1ptiiqc.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3] fw_cfg: RFQDN rules, documentation
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, "Gabriel L . Somlo" <somlo@cmu.edu>, Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>

"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> writes:

> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 10:59:35AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> If we can protect them without
>> complicating or breaking stuff, sure, why not.  But not at all costs.
>
> The stuff we break is precisely the stuff our warnings
> say might break at any time. So since you believe users
> might be relied on not to ignore warnings, it should be ok ...
>
> As for complicating things - about 5 lines of code are spent
> on the unsupported/root/ hack. It *is* a hack but
> contained enough not to worry me too much ...

I'm not worried about the implementation complexity at all.  It's the
user interface complexity.  After this patch, we have a non-trivial
mapping from -fw_cfg name to FW_CFG filename to explain.  Whereas now,
-fw_cfg name *is* the FW_CFG path.