From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH] exit if we fail to initialize kvm Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:52:31 +0300 Message-ID: <4A70703F.6070400@redhat.com> References: <1248814374-7953-1-git-send-email-glommer@redhat.com> <20090728212852.GY4776@poweredge.glommer> <4A7021AC.80403@siemens.com> <4A703767.6050301@redhat.com> <4A70406B.3050000@suse.de> <4A705FFF.5060503@siemens.com> <20090729155044.GE4776@poweredge.glommer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jan Kiszka , Alexander Graf , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" To: Glauber Costa Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:34549 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755242AbZG2Pwv (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:52:51 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090729155044.GE4776@poweredge.glommer> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 07/29/2009 06:50 PM, Glauber Costa wrote:While I do understand the value of backwards compatibility, we did change > behaviour of a number of things in the past. Example: "qemu" would print a help message, > and now it runs without any disks. It changed people's script already. > There's a huge difference in those two cases. I don't want people's guests to silently lose 90% of their performance. > It should probably be okay to drop all kvm,kqemu,whatever-related options in favour > of accel if we are doing this in a release boundary. Maintaining some backward compatibility is helpful. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function