From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:42406) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h0o7n-0001tP-Dt for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 04 Mar 2019 08:59:24 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h0o7m-0000Au-Gp for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 04 Mar 2019 08:59:23 -0500 Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 13:59:09 +0000 From: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= Message-ID: <20190304135909.GL4239@redhat.com> Reply-To: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= References: <1551454936-205218-1-git-send-email-imammedo@redhat.com> <1551454936-205218-2-git-send-email-imammedo@redhat.com> <20190301154947.GJ21251@redhat.com> <20190301183328.20b63e23@redhat.com> <20190301174806.GN21251@redhat.com> <15464582-e8a6-6654-7679-15d87c10af38@redhat.com> <20190304145510.57c73177@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190304145510.57c73177@redhat.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-ppc] [libvirt] [PATCH 1/2] numa: deprecate 'mem' parameter of '-numa node' option List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Igor Mammedov Cc: Thomas Huth , peter.maydell@linaro.org, ehabkost@redhat.com, libvir-list@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" , qemu-arm@nongnu.org, qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, david@gibson.dropbear.id.au On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 02:55:10PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote: > On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 09:11:19 +0100 > Thomas Huth wrote: >=20 > > On 01/03/2019 18.48, Daniel P. Berrang=C3=A9 wrote: > > [...] > > > So I think this patch has to be dropped & replaced with one that > > > simply documents that memdev syntax is preferred. =20 > >=20 > > That's definitely not enough. I've had a couple of cases already wher= e > > we documented that certain options should not be used anymore, and > > people simply ignored it (aka. if it ain't broken, don't do any chang= e). > > Then they just started to complain when I really tried to remove the > > option after the deprecation period. >=20 > > So Igor, if you can not officially deprecate these things here yet, y= ou > > should at least make sure that they can not be used with new machine > > types anymore. Then, after a couple of years, when we feel sure that > > there are only some few or no people left who still use it with the o= ld > > machine types, we can start to discuss the deprecation process again,= I > > think. > Is it acceptable to silently disable CLI options (even if they are brok= en > like in this case) for new machine types? > I was under impression that it should go through deprecation first. Yes, it must go through deprecation. I was saying we can't disable the CLI options at all, until there is a way for libvirt to correctly use the new options. Regards, Daniel --=20 |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberran= ge :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.c= om :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberran= ge :|