From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues Subject: Re: [KVM-AUTOTEST PATCH] KVM test: use command line option wrapper functions Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 07:57:23 -0300 Message-ID: <1274353043.2666.1.camel@freedom> References: <1194881134.779571274257507638.JavaMail.root@zmail04.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> <4BF505ED.6000801@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Feng Yang , autotest@test.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Michael Goldish Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:44967 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754677Ab0ETK52 (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 May 2010 06:57:28 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4BF505ED.6000801@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 2010-05-20 at 12:50 +0300, Michael Goldish wrote: > On 05/19/2010 11:25 AM, Feng Yang wrote: > > Hi, Michael > > > > Thanks for your patch. > > We plan add "netdev" parameter support in make_qemu_command. Since you are working on this part. Could you add netdev support in your patch? hopeful netdev can be default supported in make_qemu_command if qemu support it. Thanks very much! > > Sure, I'll look into it. > > > I think the point of this patch is good and we need this kinds of patch. > > But I think we need not add so many new function. Especially some function only directly return the string and do nothing more. > > This will increase the function call consumption. > > > All these helper functions are meant to be extended and modified in the > future. They're only there to minimize future effort involved in adding > support for new command line syntaxes. > Right now add_smp() just returns " -smp %s", but in the future we may > have to support different syntaxes for -smp, and then add_smp() will > consult the output of 'qemu -help' and return the proper string. > What do you mean by function call consumption? I don't think these > functions cause a measurable slowdown, and make_qemu_command() is called > very few times, so this really isn't a concern IMO. Agreed, the wrappers are a good strategy in the case we have to support different feature sets and syntax.