Marcelo Tosatti <mtosa...@redhat.com> writes: > On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 10:02:26AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> Il 08/10/2013 09:32, Markus Armbruster ha scritto: >> > We have >> > >> > -mem-path FILE provide backing storage for guest RAM >> > -mem-prealloc preallocate guest memory (use with -mem-path) >> > >> > PATCH 2/2 adds >> > >> > -mem-path-force fail if unable to allocate RAM as specified by >> > -mem-path >> > >> > Looks like it's time to consolidate the options related to guest memory >> > into a single, QemuOpts-style -memory NAME=VALUE,... What do you guys >> > think? >> >> Yes, we can use "-numa memory" (or "-numa mem") that Wanlong Gao is >> adding. We can add path=, preallocate= and force= options there. >> >> Paolo > > It would be important for the new option to be backportable > independently. Therefore mixing it with -numa is not an option. > > Also due to backportability supporting a new style of command line > for -mem-path is problematic (management must be changed accordingly).
We've converted -FOO ARG options to QemuOpts-style -FOO NAME=VALUE,... before. You can use QemuOptsList member implied_opt_name to get bare ARG accepted. Works except for ARGs containing '=' or ','. Management still has to detect whether -FOO is old or new. QMP command query-command-line-options should do. > Can the new option format for memory be created incrementally on > top of -mem-path-force? (agree its a good thing, it avoids proliferation > of new options). If you do it on top, it won't avoid proliferation, or am I missing something?
