From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60221) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fQtJ7-0003a4-Gh for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 07 Jun 2018 07:42:22 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fQtJ6-0003be-Ij for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 07 Jun 2018 07:42:21 -0400 References: <20180426161958.2872-1-rkagan@virtuozzo.com> <20180426161958.2872-4-rkagan@virtuozzo.com> <87tvqjf28u.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <3f5aaa32-5e43-542b-c657-3f1eec553e70@redhat.com> <87d0x33wyr.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <19326638-6980-5473-dea9-79c7aabdf710@redhat.com> <828d2f50-fd57-d103-1d94-98ddd0c23d6d@redhat.com> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <48d98c53-5ff4-6391-87ec-334be1b5712e@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2018 13:42:09 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <828d2f50-fd57-d103-1d94-98ddd0c23d6d@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] -enable-kvm and friens (was: Re: [PATCH 03/17] iotests: ask qemu for supported formats) List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Thomas Huth , Markus Armbruster Cc: Eric Blake , Roman Kagan , Kevin Wolf , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-block@nongnu.org, Max Reitz , "Daniel P. Berrange" 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