From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=49890 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OvkbI-0005xE-BO
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 01:32:09 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <john@john-cooper.org>) id 1OvkbG-0005UV-Qz
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 01:32:08 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:2339)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <john@john-cooper.org>) id 1OvkbG-0005Qq-Kb
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 01:32:06 -0400
Message-ID: <4C90599D.3020406@john-cooper.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 01:29:01 -0400
From: john cooper <john@john-cooper.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 4/4] cpu model corrections/updates:
	add	verbose config file handling
References: <4C8630AA.5030908@redhat.com>	<AANLkTineeNqVDshG8opuT-wqrMFfz2Vkt-tGx7VjcOuR@mail.gmail.com>	<4C88590C.9010405@redhat.com>
	<AANLkTikE3gjk=icKqxQKMc0tLrpwK6JcXOFrquaKcTQX@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikE3gjk=icKqxQKMc0tLrpwK6JcXOFrquaKcTQX@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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.nongnu.org/archive/html/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: Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>
Cc: john cooper <john.cooper@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Blue Swirl wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:48 AM, john cooper <john.cooper@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I think '?' is not very good name.
>> I agree, a shell meta char wasn't my first choice.  However
>> it follows the precedent of '?' used in similar query operations
>> and was chosen only for CLI consistency.
>
> But '?' is used for other purposes: query available options. It would
> be more logical if -readconfig '?' instead could be used to query the
> default config files.
>
Which is what -writeconfig does, sort of.  Although the structure
of potential multiple input config files is lost and rather the
resulting flat config space is output.  But the alternative is
probably more of a headache than it's worth.

>>> Could we add flags to -readconfig,
>>> like -readconfig verbose,nodefaultconfig,file='', to match other
>>> options' syntax?
>> That seems most natural for options specific to the associated
>> config file.  However the verbose flag was intended as a
>> global action rather than local to a given config file.  The
>> preexisting "nodefconfig" is also a global option.
>
> Right. It just seems that there are a lot of global flags. How about
> -config nodefaults,verbose?
>   
Agreed this is more logical.  The reason I avoided doing so initially
was concern over impacting existing usage.  But it isn't really much
in retrospect.  Updated patch follows.

-john

-- 
john.cooper@redhat.com