From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MP27t-0007b1-U5
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:30:01 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MP27o-0007ZD-Lq
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:30:00 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=33647 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MP27o-0007Yz-BJ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:29:56 -0400
Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.198.247]:41592)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1MP27n-0006Zx-VV
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:29:56 -0400
Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b17so101390rvf.22
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 09 Jul 2009 15:29:54 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4A566F5F.4070005@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:29:51 -0500
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: Disabling kqemu by default at runtime for 0.11
References: <4A565B42.3050005@us.ibm.com>
	<200907092314.52961.paul@codesourcery.com>
In-Reply-To: <200907092314.52961.paul@codesourcery.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Cc: "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

Paul Brook wrote:
> On Thursday 09 July 2009, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>   
>> We've talked about this at length but I'd like to pull the trigger.  The
>> user-visible change would be that -enable-kqemu would be required to
>> explicitly request kqemu support instead of enabling it by default.
>> kqemu would still be enabled by default at build time.
>>
>> Do you object to this Paul?
>>     
>
> i have no objection to disabling kqemu by default *at runtime*. This would 
> make it the same as kvm.
>
> On principle I object to having code that is disabled by default at configure 
> time. IMO that code should either be removed or fixed. If we were to disable 
> kqemu at configure time for 0.11 then I would expect to remove the code from 
> trunk shortly after 0.11 was released.
>   

I've left kqemu enabled in the build but just defaulted it to off at 
runtime.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

> Paul
>
>
>