From: "Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>
To: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
Cc: Laurent Vivier <lvivier@redhat.com>,
Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>,
qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>,
David Edmondson <david.edmondson@oracle.com>,
Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] x86 CPU feature +/- fiddling and +kvm-no-defaults
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 16:41:42 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210119164142.GO2335568@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210119163518.GH1227584@habkost.net>
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 11:35:18AM -0500, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 04:28:26PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 02:22:05PM +0000, David Edmondson wrote:
> > > Currently "-cpu -feature,+feature" will disable -feature, which seems
> > > contrary to the intention of the user. Fix this such that the later
> > > flag wins. There are no changes to the interaction of +/- and =on/=off.
> >
> > The -feature/+feature syntax is the legacy way of configuring
> > features, with feature=on|off being the preferred, since that matches
> > the general QEMU standard for boolean properties.
> >
> > Your proposed change in ordering of + vs - makes conceptual sense, but
> > it is none the less a semantic change in behaviour that may well cause
> > breakage for existing deployed VMs. This impacts guest ABI so could
> > particularly cause live migration problems.
> >
> > IOW, we should have implemented it the way you propose in the first
> > place, but I don't think it is safe to change it now, unless you can
> > tie that new semantic to a machine type version.
> >
> > Before we consider that though, Paolo has just deprecated many of the
> > legacy approaches for boolean properties in this:
> >
> > https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2021-01/msg04341.html
> >
> > I'm inclined to say that we just follow on from that and finally
> > deprecate the +feature/-feature CPU syntax which we're already considering
> > legacy. This would remove the need to care about changing its behaviour
>
> I believe we had multiple proposal in the past do deprecate
> +feature/-feature, but there were objections. I couldn't find
> the original threads, though.
Historically libvirt was using +/- syntax, but we finally removed the last
usage of it in June 2019 / libvirt v5.4.0. So for modern QEMU libvirt will
always use =on|off.
> In either case, I thought we had already deprecated the weird
> ordering rules of "-feature,+feature".
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-01-19 19:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-01-19 14:22 [RFC PATCH 0/2] x86 CPU feature +/- fiddling and +kvm-no-defaults David Edmondson
2021-01-19 14:22 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] hw/i386: -cpu model, -feature, +feature should enable feature David Edmondson
2021-01-19 15:20 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] hw/i386: -cpu model,-feature,+feature " Eduardo Habkost
2021-01-19 16:27 ` [External] : " David Edmondson
2021-01-19 16:30 ` Eduardo Habkost
2021-01-20 9:59 ` Igor Mammedov
2021-01-20 10:08 ` David Edmondson
2021-01-20 10:08 ` [External] : " Daniel P. Berrangé
2021-01-20 10:17 ` David Edmondson
2021-01-20 16:18 ` Eduardo Habkost
2021-01-20 19:21 ` Igor Mammedov
2021-01-20 20:12 ` [PATCH] docs/system: Deprecate `-cpu ...,+feature,-feature` syntax Eduardo Habkost
2021-01-20 20:19 ` [PATCH] docs/system: Deprecate `-cpu ..., +feature, -feature` syntax David Edmondson
2021-01-21 9:39 ` [PATCH] docs/system: Deprecate `-cpu ...,+feature,-feature` syntax Daniel P. Berrangé
2021-01-27 0:14 ` John Snow
2021-01-21 10:25 ` Igor Mammedov
2021-01-19 14:22 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] target/i386: Add "-cpu +kvm-no-defaults" David Edmondson
2021-01-19 16:28 ` [RFC PATCH 0/2] x86 CPU feature +/- fiddling and +kvm-no-defaults Daniel P. Berrangé
2021-01-19 16:35 ` Eduardo Habkost
2021-01-19 16:41 ` Daniel P. Berrangé [this message]
2021-01-20 10:01 ` Igor Mammedov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210119164142.GO2335568@redhat.com \
--to=berrange@redhat.com \
--cc=armbru@redhat.com \
--cc=david.edmondson@oracle.com \
--cc=ehabkost@redhat.com \
--cc=imammedo@redhat.com \
--cc=lvivier@redhat.com \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=richard.henderson@linaro.org \
--cc=thuth@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).