On 01/06/2015 09:28, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > I don't feel overly strongly about it; just "mechanism, not policy" > > looks like a good tradition (well, good excuse anyway). > > Most users never see warnings. We ship it, we support it. > If we don't want to support it, let's not ship it.
Then we should rm -rf half of QEMU. :) Seriously, I agree wholeheartedly with not baking policy into QEMU. A lot of QEMU command-line hacking really is just a shortcut to avoid continuous recompilation. I don't think it's reasonable to expect that it constitutes a stable API. Paolo
