[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-trivial] [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH 4/4] qemu-options: Do not sho

From: Daniel P . Berrangé
Subject: Re: [Qemu-trivial] [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH 4/4] qemu-options: Do not show -enable-kvm and -enable-hax in the docs anymore
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:19:42 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.9.5 (2018-04-13)

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 05:11:51PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 13.06.2018 15:44, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 02:38:40PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 07:05:21AM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
> >>> We've got three ways of enabling an accelerator: -machine accel=xyz,
> >>> -accel xyz and -enable-xyz. For new QEMU users, this must be very
> >>> confusing ("Which one do I have to use? Is there a difference between
> >>> the options?"). While -enable-kvm was useful in the past, there is no
> >>> real good reason for using it anymore today ("-accel kvm" is even less
> >>> to type than "-enable-kvm"), so let's decrease the confusing amount of
> >>> options in our documenation a little bit by removing the -enable-xyz
> >>> here. Note that the option itself is neither removed nor marked as
> >>> deprecated - since -enable-kvm is likely used in a lot of scripts and
> >>> since its code is easy to maintain, we should keep it around to avoid
> >>> to break old setups.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <address@hidden>
> >>> ---
> >>>  PS: I guess Paolo won't like this patch ... let's try it anyway ;-)
> >>
> >> It's widely used and we're removing the documentation for it?!  That is
> >> likely to cause issues for new users who refer to the man page to
> >> understand the QEMU command-lines they see online, in scripts, etc.
> > 
> > Agreed, this is a very bad idea. Any option that is accepted by QEMU,
> > but not documented is a bug that must be fixed. IOW removing docs
> > is creating bugs.
> Not documenting unliked options that are still kept for compatibility
> was at least a common practice in the past (see -no-kvm for example, or
> many of those deprecated options like -net channel that have been
> removed in the past year).

If we're planning to deprecate & then delete an option, then I
don't mind if docs are dropped, but IIUC, in this case we're
not doing that - the option will essentially exist forever.

> > If we want to help users understand why we have -enable-kvm, just
> > make the docs say that it is syntactic for '-machine accel=kvm'.
> > Users can decide for themselves whether they want to switch to
> > the more verbose way or not
> Uh, well, in this case "-enable-kvm" is already the more verbose way:
> "-accel kvm" is shorter :-)

If I'm a user looking for how to enable KVM, then -enable-kvm is the
one I'll pick because of the obvious name.

> It's just a big mess: We've got -enable-kvm, -enable-hax, but there is
> no -enable-hvf, -enable-whpx or -enable-xen option. And to force TCG
> mode, you've got to use -no-kvm ... honestly, if I were a new user, I'd
> simply say: WTF!?!

Personally I'd just clean that up by just adding the missing
-enable-xxx options for consistency :-)

> But ok, since -enable-kvm has such a big tradition and is used in a lot
> of examples out there, it's likely really better if we keep it in the
> documentation. But we should either move it to a "obsolete option"
> chapter, or update the current documentation with some words like
> "obsolete" or "legacy" (to make it clear that nobody gets the idea of
> introducing -enable-hvf or other similar options in the future).
> And what about -enable-hax? That hardly has any tradtion. Should we
> maybe even deprecate it?

|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|

reply via email to

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