[Top][All Lists]

[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: Peter Maydell
Subject: Re: Priority of -accel (was: [PATCH] tests/qemu-iotests: Update tests to recent desugarized -accel option)
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 10:43:53 +0000

On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 11:00, Peter Maydell <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 10:40, Alex Bennée <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Thomas Huth <address@hidden> writes:
> > > What about "-accel any" or "-accel fastest" or something similar?
> >
> > "any" is just ambiguous, "fastest" is just begging for me to find a
> > micro-benchmark that TCG outperforms on ;-)
> >
> > "-accel default" could be considered to have vibes of Do The Right
> > Thing (tm) and could in time actually become so!
> That would be a weird choice, because it's not actually the default!
> The obvious analogy here is with -cpu best, -machine gic-version=best,
> etc -- use "best". You can argue that it's maybe not got the ideal
> set of connotations, but I think that trying to be consistent about
> the name we use for "do the thing that seems to be the most
> sensible for the host/etc that we've got" is worthwhile.

This is actually a load of rubbish, because the cpu option is
'max', not 'best'. I still like consistency, though :-)

-- PMM

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]