[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] fw_cfg: RQFN rules, documentation
From: |
Laszlo Ersek |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] fw_cfg: RQFN rules, documentation |
Date: |
Tue, 5 Apr 2016 11:20:46 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.0 |
On 04/05/16 10:35, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 07:14:48PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 04/04/16 17:57, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>
>>>> ... My question is, do we need the "opt/" prefix at all (for the future,
>>>> i.e., the non-historical cases)?
>>>> Looking at the last discussion, I
>>>> believe we converged on:
>>>>
>>>> - QEMU devs (future filenames): org.qemu/...
>>>> - users: com.my_company/...
>>>> - QEMU fw devs (future names): org.tianocore.edk2.ovmf/...
>>>> org.seabios/...
>>>> - QEMU fw devs hacking: <root-prefix-to-strip>/...
>>>>
>>>> Did you find something unsafe about this (necessitating "opt/")?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The reason to use the opt/ prefix is to avoid warning
>>> with QEMU 2.4 and 2.5.
>>
>> Sorry, it's been a long day :), and I don't understand your answer. Can
>> you please spell it out for me? How are QEMU 2.4 and 2.5 related to this
>> discussion?
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Laszlo
>
> People would want to use the same command line for QEMU 2.4, 2.5 and
> 2.6. If you use a prefix without opt with 2.4/2.5 you get a warning,
> and if people get a warning from a valid command line, that's not nice, so
> we want a prefix that does not cause a warning for these versions.
Ah, understood. Thanks.
Laszlo