From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HNp8L-0000lY-K5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 04 Mar 2007 06:44:09 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HNp8K-0000lM-2e for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 04 Mar 2007 06:44:08 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HNp8J-0000lJ-SE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 04 Mar 2007 06:44:07 -0500 Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.52) id 1HNp8J-0007sX-Ba for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 04 Mar 2007 06:44:07 -0500 From: Paul Brook Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] QEMU/pc and scsi disks Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 11:43:59 +0000 References: <45E70CCF.40800@bull.net> <45EA06EE.3000509@codemonkey.ws> <45EA9122.6000207@qumranet.com> In-Reply-To: <45EA9122.6000207@qumranet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200703041144.00936.paul@codesourcery.com> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Sunday 04 March 2007 09:28, Avi Kivity wrote: > Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> 1. Any option should be settable either in the config file or > >> command line. In other words, the user should not be forced to use a > >> config file. This is useful for management programs who keep all > >> options in an internal database, and for users who can experiment via > >> a ^P edit edit edit . > > > > I think we should still provide the ability to set the most common > > options via the command line. I'm also fine with specifying single > > options on the command line. I suspect though that being able to do > > -config - is more useful for management tools than building large > > strings of command line options. > > Out of curiosity, why? If the options are store in some database, as is > likely, surely it is easier to generate a longish command line than to > generate a unique name for a file, remove it if it already exists, write > out the data, launch qemu, and clean up the file later? And for > migration, you have to regenerate it, since some options may have > changed (cdrom media). You're going to start hitting commandline length limits fairly rapidly (Windows in particular has a fairly low limit). Paul