Re: [Qemu-devel] -enable-kvm and friens (was: Re: [PATCH 03/17] iotests: ask qemu for supported formats)

[Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>]

On 07/06/2018 13:27, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> As to "-enable-kvm", I don't see anything wrong with users using it, or
>> even with occasionally adding more options like it.  However, we should
>> warn developers that such simple options should be syntactic sugar for a
>> structured (i.e. QemuOpts-based) option like "-accel", and that it
>> should only be done for similarity with existing options.
> Honestly, in this case I think it's just confusing for the normal users,
> and not sugar (anymore). If I'm an unexperienced user who wants to
> enable KVM, and I see multiple options that seem to be related, I wonder
> whether they do the same or whether there's a difference, and which one
> is preferred. And "-accel kvm" is even less to type than "-enable-kvm",
> so there is really no advantage for "-enable-kvm" anymore. I think we
> should remove "-enable-kvm" and "-enable-hax" from qemu-doc.texi and
> only list it in the new legacy chapter / document.

Well, there's also the issue of distros shipping qemu-kvm binaries.  I
think those should be provided by upstream.  If we do that, then we're
perhaps in a better position to place --enable-kvm under the rug.

Paolo