From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60005) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Upfq6-0001vr-HE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:27:59 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Upfq1-000154-Vd for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:27:54 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:7400) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Upfq1-00014z-M2 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:27:49 -0400 Message-ID: <51C303E7.0@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:30:15 +0200 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20130619134252.22bdbc37@nial.usersys.redhat.com> <20130619132642.GD2825@otherpad.lan.raisama.net> <20130620113030.79943476@nial.usersys.redhat.com> <51C2D0EA.7060204@redhat.com> <20130620132651.GG2825@otherpad.lan.raisama.net> In-Reply-To: <20130620132651.GG2825@otherpad.lan.raisama.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3] vl.c: Support multiple CPU ranges on -numa option List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eduardo Habkost Cc: Igor Mammedov , Bandan Das , Anthony Liguori , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Markus Armbruster Il 20/06/2013 15:26, Eduardo Habkost ha scritto: > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:52:42AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> Il 20/06/2013 11:30, Igor Mammedov ha scritto: >>>>>>>>> So, basically the format seemed easier to work with if we are thinking >>>>>>>>> of using QemuOpts for -numa. Using -cpu rather than cpus probably >>>>>>>>> makes it less ambiguous as well IMO. However, it's probably not a good idea >>>>>>>>> if the current syntax is well established ? >>>>> >>>>> libvirt uses the "cpus" option already, so we have to keep it working. >>> Sure, we can leave it as it's now for some time while a new interface is >>> introduced/adopted. And than later deprecate "cpus". >> >> So, you used a new name because the new behavior of "-numa >> node,cpus=1-2,cpus=3-4" would be incompatible with the old. > > I don't think anybody uses "cpus=1-2,cpus=3-4" today, so I believe we > can change its behavior. The problem was to get agreement on the syntax > to represent multiple CPU ranges. Ok. I think almost everyone agreed on "cpus=1-2,cpus=3-4", which is basically what Bandan's patch does minus s/cpu/cpus/. It matches what already happens with other options (SLIRP), so it's hardly surprising. Let's go on with that. Paolo >> Personally I don't think that's a problem, but I remember a long >> discussion in the past. Igor/Eduardo, do you remember the conclusions? > > I don't remember seeing the discussion reach any conclusion, > unfortunately. >