From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44815) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a97nH-0006tQ-Ok for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 03:50:44 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a97nE-0000MO-Hv for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 03:50:43 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-x230.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c09::230]:38759) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a97nE-0000MK-Ac for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 03:50:40 -0500 Received: by mail-wm0-x230.google.com with SMTP id l126so28087894wml.1 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 00:50:40 -0800 (PST) Sender: Paolo Bonzini References: <1450179992-15959-1-git-send-email-thuth@redhat.com> <56700CBA.5010505@redhat.com> <56703969.9050905@redhat.com> <56703E09.5000504@redhat.com> <56704ACB.8010909@redhat.com> <56704E82.3080403@redhat.com> <567052E7.3000903@redhat.com> <56705711.1000702@redhat.com> <567110D4.1040205@redhat.com> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <567125DD.7050500@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 09:50:37 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <567110D4.1040205@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] net: Inform the user about deprecated -net options List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Thomas Huth , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Jason Wang Cc: Markus Armbruster On 16/12/2015 08:20, Thomas Huth wrote: > Ah, ok, that makes more sense... anyway, "-device ?" also lists some > devices like "ne2k_isa", ""usb-bt-dongle" and "vmxnet3" ... I somewhat > doubt that we want to have these in the list of "-net nic" supported > devices, too. Why not? > ... hmmm, by the way, why the heck do we have vmxnet3 on powerpc? Does > that make sense at all? By default all PCI devices are included in all targets, that's the simple explanation. :) >>>>>> The thing is, people are still running QEMU from the command line. >>>>>> >>>>>> "-net nic -net bridge,br=virbr0" is still much less of a mouthful than >>>>>> "-netdev bridge,br=virbr0,id=br -device rtl8139,netdev=br" if all I want >>>>>> is something I can ssh into. >>>>>> >>>>>> It's easy to deprecate things. It's hard to convince users that it's >>>>>> worth, and you haven't convinced this user. :) > > Just another idea before we drop this topic again completely: What if > we'd extend "-netdev" to be easier to use, too. For example, if you'd > just specify "-netdev bridge,br=virbr0", without using an id and without > specifying a "-device", you would get the netdev hooked up to the > board's default NIC automatically. That would be even less to type than > your example with "-net" since you would not need the "-net nic" > parameter in that case... Would it then be ok to deprecate the "-net" > option? Actually that would be the worst of both worlds. :) The point of -netdev is exactly to have no magic, to be a direct connection between the command line and the devices. It makes sense, it's just not too user friendly. I really think that if you move -net to net/netlegacy.c it wouldn't look bad at all. Paolo