On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:52:42AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 20/06/2013 11:30, Igor Mammedov ha scritto: > >>>> > > > So, basically the format seemed easier to work with if we are > >>>> > > > thinking > >>>> > > > of using QemuOpts for -numa. Using -cpu rather than cpus probably > >>>> > > > makes it less ambiguous as well IMO. However, it's probably not a > >>>> > > > good idea > >>>> > > > if the current syntax is well established ? > >> > > >> > libvirt uses the "cpus" option already, so we have to keep it working. > > Sure, we can leave it as it's now for some time while a new interface is > > introduced/adopted. And than later deprecate "cpus". > > So, you used a new name because the new behavior of "-numa > node,cpus=1-2,cpus=3-4" would be incompatible with the old.
I don't think anybody uses "cpus=1-2,cpus=3-4" today, so I believe we can change its behavior. The problem was to get agreement on the syntax to represent multiple CPU ranges. > > Personally I don't think that's a problem, but I remember a long > discussion in the past. Igor/Eduardo, do you remember the conclusions? I don't remember seeing the discussion reach any conclusion, unfortunately. -- Eduardo
