[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Priority of -accel (was: [PATCH] tests/qemu-iotests: Update tests to
From: |
Thomas Huth |
Subject: |
Re: Priority of -accel (was: [PATCH] tests/qemu-iotests: Update tests to recent desugarized -accel option) |
Date: |
Tue, 7 Jan 2020 13:18:18 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0 |
On 07/01/2020 11.14, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 07/01/20 11:03, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>>
>>> vm = QEMUMachine(iotests.qemu_prog)
>>> -vm.add_args('-machine', 'accel=kvm:tcg')
>>> +vm.add_args('-accel', 'kvm', '-accel', 'tcg')
>> Looking at this, I wonder whether we really want the "-accel" option to
>> prioritize the accelerators in the order of appearance? A lot of other
>> CLI tools give the highest priority to the last parameter instead, e.g.
>> "gcc -O3 -O1" compiles with -O1, and not with -O3.
>>
>> Also I think it might be quite common that there are shell scripts which
>> call "qemu-system-xxx -accel xyz $*" ... and if we don't invert the
>> priorities of -accel, it will be impossible to override -accel in that
>> case...
>
> Hmm, it does match "-machine accel=kvm:tcg" and in general I think it's
> more self-explanatory. However, it is indeed less friendly to scripts.
> On one hand those could be changed to place "-accel xyz" after $* (or
> better "$@"), on the other hand we could also add a priority option to
> "-accel". What do you think?
I don't think we need a separate priority parameter here. But IMHO it's
really rather common practice to prioritize the last option. So while
it might be more "self-explanatory" to a CLI newbie if the first
occurrence got the highest priority, it might be rather confusing
instead for a CLI veteran...?
What do others on the list here think about this?
Thomas
- [PATCH] tests/qemu-iotests: Update tests to recent desugarized -accel option, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé, 2020/01/06
- Re: [PATCH] tests/qemu-iotests: Update tests to recent desugarized -accel option, Max Reitz, 2020/01/06
- Priority of -accel (was: [PATCH] tests/qemu-iotests: Update tests to recent desugarized -accel option), Thomas Huth, 2020/01/07
- Re: Priority of -accel (was: [PATCH] tests/qemu-iotests: Update tests to recent desugarized -accel option), Paolo Bonzini, 2020/01/07
- Re: Priority of -accel (was: [PATCH] tests/qemu-iotests: Update tests to recent desugarized -accel option),
Thomas Huth <=
- Re: Priority of -accel (was: [PATCH] tests/qemu-iotests: Update tests to recent desugarized -accel option), Paolo Bonzini, 2020/01/07
- Re: Priority of -accel (was: [PATCH] tests/qemu-iotests: Update tests to recent desugarized -accel option), Daniel P . Berrangé, 2020/01/07
- Re: Priority of -accel (was: [PATCH] tests/qemu-iotests: Update tests to recent desugarized -accel option), Thomas Huth, 2020/01/07
- Re: Priority of -accel, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé, 2020/01/07
- Re: Priority of -accel, Daniel P . Berrangé, 2020/01/07
- Re: Priority of -accel, Thomas Huth, 2020/01/07
- Re: Priority of -accel, Markus Armbruster, 2020/01/13
- Re: Priority of -accel, Christophe de Dinechin, 2020/01/13
- Re: Priority of -accel, Paolo Bonzini, 2020/01/13
- Re: Priority of -accel (was: [PATCH] tests/qemu-iotests: Update tests to recent desugarized -accel option), Daniel P . Berrangé, 2020/01/07