Re: Redesign of QEMU startup & initial configuration

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 12/10/21 12:25, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > > I can't disagree with this. If we carry on trying to evolve vl.c
> > > incrementally we are doomed to be stuck with a horrible starstup
> > > process for enternity (or at least as long as I'll still be
> > > working as QEMU maintainer).
> > ... and if you compare vl.c in 5.2 and now, and consider current vl.c to be
> > horrible, my knowedge of English does not include an adjective to describe
> > the 5.2 state.  Some incremental work_is_  possible or even necessary, and
> > has been done already.
> Right, I'm not saying vl.c hasn't improved, but we're never going
> to get out of the peculiar historical startup ordering rules we
> have today by incremental fixes, without breaking people.

Ok, so the confusion is between a horrible startup process and a 
horrible startup interface.  The latter cannot be improved 
incrementally, the former can (to the point where adding a new 
non-horrible frontend is "trivial").

Thanks,

Paolo