On 06/01/15 12:23, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 11:01:23AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> >> >> 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 > > Still, reserving part of the namespace for QEMU internal use > is *not* policy, it's just good engineering. > > How about we forbid adding files under "etc/" ? > > That would be enough to avoid conflicts.
Some of the current fw_cfg files, like "bootorder", are not under "etc/". Hence the earlier proposal to restrict the user (to under opt/, IIRC), rather than ourselves. Thanks Laszlo
