From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=41630 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OGyPY-0001mf-Lj for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 25 May 2010 13:59:30 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OGyPX-0006Et-Gd for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 25 May 2010 13:59:28 -0400 Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:39238 helo=mx1.suse.de) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OGyPX-0006Ej-Bj for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 25 May 2010 13:59:27 -0400 Message-ID: <4BFC0FF6.1080005@suse.de> Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 19:59:18 +0200 From: Alexander Graf MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] Add cache=volatile parameter to -drive References: <1274091292-4812-1-git-send-email-agraf@suse.de> <4BF14CE9.5040907@suse.de> <4BF15DC8.8080104@codemonkey.ws> <201005171723.15675.paul@codesourcery.com> <4BF16E22.6090400@codemonkey.ws> In-Reply-To: <4BF16E22.6090400@codemonkey.ws> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, hch@lst.de, Paul Brook , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 05/17/2010 11:23 AM, Paul Brook wrote: >>>> I don't see a difference between the results. Apparently the barrier >>>> option doesn't change a thing. >>>> >>> Ok. I don't like it, but I can see how it's compelling. I'd like to >>> see the documentation improved though. I also think a warning printed >>> on stdio about the safety of the option would be appropriate. >>> >> I disagree with this last bit. >> >> Errors should be issued if the user did something wrong. >> Warnings should be issued if qemu did (or will soon do) something >> other than >> what the user requested, or otherwise made questionable decisions on the >> user's behalf. >> >> In this case we're doing exactly what the user requested. The only >> plausible >> failure case is where a user is blindly trying options that they >> clearly don't >> understand or read the documentation for. I have zero sympathy for >> complaints >> like "Someone on the Internet told me to use --breakme, and broke >> thinks". >> > > I see it as the equivalent to the Taint bit in Linux. I want to make > it clear to users up front that if you use this option, and you have > data loss issues, don't complain. > > Just putting something in qemu-doc.texi is not enough IMHO. Few > people actually read it. So what exactly is the conclusion here? I really want to see this getting merged. Alex