Il 20/06/2013 15:26, Eduardo Habkost ha scritto: > 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.
Ok. I think almost everyone agreed on "cpus=1-2,cpus=3-4", which is basically what Bandan's patch does minus s/cpu/cpus/. It matches what already happens with other options (SLIRP), so it's hardly surprising. Let's go on with that. Paolo >> 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. >
