Re: [Qemu-block] -enable-kvm and friens

[Thomas Huth]

On 07.06.2018 13:42, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 07/06/2018 13:27, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>> As to "-enable-kvm", I don't see anything wrong with users using it, or
>>> even with occasionally adding more options like it.  However, we should
>>> warn developers that such simple options should be syntactic sugar for a
>>> structured (i.e. QemuOpts-based) option like "-accel", and that it
>>> should only be done for similarity with existing options.
>> Honestly, in this case I think it's just confusing for the normal users,
>> and not sugar (anymore). If I'm an unexperienced user who wants to
>> enable KVM, and I see multiple options that seem to be related, I wonder
>> whether they do the same or whether there's a difference, and which one
>> is preferred. And "-accel kvm" is even less to type than "-enable-kvm",
>> so there is really no advantage for "-enable-kvm" anymore. I think we
>> should remove "-enable-kvm" and "-enable-hax" from qemu-doc.texi and
>> only list it in the new legacy chapter / document.
> 
> Well, there's also the issue of distros shipping qemu-kvm binaries.  I
> think those should be provided by upstream.  If we do that, then we're
> perhaps in a better position to place --enable-kvm under the rug.

You don't need -enable-kvm for those qemu-kvm binaries, only -no-kvm.
And -no-kvm has never been documented in our qemu-doc user documentation
anyway (apart from the fact that it is now mentioned in the deprecation
chapter). So if we'd now mentioned -no-kvm in a "legacy feature" chapter
instead of the deprecation chapter, that would even improve the
situation for downstream qemu-kvms :-)

 Thomas