From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38102) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fXWEH-0000kO-Lu for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 14:28:46 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fXWED-00075F-Nu for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 14:28:45 -0400 Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:35932 helo=mx1.redhat.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fXWED-00074y-Hj for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 14:28:41 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08F8F81A4EB3 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 18:28:41 +0000 (UTC) References: <1529950933-28347-1-git-send-email-thuth@redhat.com> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 20:28:38 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1529950933-28347-1-git-send-email-thuth@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Deprecate the -enable-hax option List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Thomas Huth , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: Markus Armbruster On 25/06/2018 20:22, Thomas Huth wrote: > We currently have got three ways of turning on the HAX accelerator: > "-machine accel=hax", "-accel hax" and "-enable-hax". That's really > confusing and overloaded. Since "-accel" is our preferred way to enable > an accelerator nowadays, and "-accel hax" is even less to type than > "-enable-hax", let's deprecate the "-enable-hax" option now. > > Note: While "-enable-kvm" is available since a long time and can hardly be > removed since it is used in a lot of upper layer tools and scripts, the > "-enable-hax" option is still rather new and not very widespread yet, so > I think that it should be OK if we remove this in a couple of releases again > (we'll see whether someone complains after seeing the deprecation message - > then we could still reconsider to keep it if there a well-founded reasons). > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth > --- > Let's give this a try at least :-) Sounds good, queued. Paolo