Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 4/4] cpu model corrections/updates: add verbose config file handling

[Blue Swirl]

On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:48 AM, john cooper <address@hidden> wrote:
> Blue Swirl wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 12:31 PM, john cooper <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> Failure by qemu to open a default config file isn't cause to
>>> error exit -- it just quietly continues on.   After puzzling
>>> issues with otherwise opaque config file locations and
>>> startup handling numerous times, some help from qemu seemed
>>> justified.
>>
>> Maybe there should be an error exit if the user specifies a config
>> file but there are problems with it?
>
> That's one possibility.  However given the preexisting
> behavior where open of at least one of the config files
> routinely fails and is quietly dismissed, issuing warnings
> would seem distracting to the user.
>
> I think one config file is all which is needed, and the
> config syntax can be extended to allow including other
> vendor/install specific files as needed.  I particularly
> feel so as we've locally had to add yet a third config file
> to push system quasi-static config data out of the way of
> possible user modification for libvirt concerns.  That was
> a last-minute bandaid solution which just makes the problem
> worse.  Anyway such vendor specific config structure should
> be handled within the config mechanism itself vs. hard coding
> it into qemu startup.
>
>>> In the case of a "?" pseudo filename arg to -readconfig,
>>> verbose open of all config files will be enabled.  Normal
>>> handling of config files is otherwise unaffected by this
>>> option.
>>
>> I think '?' is not very good name.
>
> I agree, a shell meta char wasn't my first choice.  However
> it follows the precedent of '?' used in similar query operations
> and was chosen only for CLI consistency.

But '?' is used for other purposes: query available options. It would
be more logical if -readconfig '?' instead could be used to query the
default config files.

>> Could we add flags to -readconfig,
>> like -readconfig verbose,nodefaultconfig,file='', to match other
>> options' syntax?
>
> That seems most natural for options specific to the associated
> config file.  However the verbose flag was intended as a
> global action rather than local to a given config file.  The
> preexisting "nodefconfig" is also a global option.

Right. It just seems that there are a lot of global flags. How about
-config nodefaults,verbose?