On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 06:19:55PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> writes: > > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 10:59:35AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: > >> If we can protect them without > >> complicating or breaking stuff, sure, why not. But not at all costs. > > > > The stuff we break is precisely the stuff our warnings > > say might break at any time. So since you believe users > > might be relied on not to ignore warnings, it should be ok ... > > > > As for complicating things - about 5 lines of code are spent > > on the unsupported/root/ hack. It *is* a hack but > > contained enough not to worry me too much ... > > I'm not worried about the implementation complexity at all. It's the > user interface complexity. After this patch, we have a non-trivial > mapping from -fw_cfg name to FW_CFG filename to explain. Whereas now, > -fw_cfg name *is* the FW_CFG path.
Only for people who ignore the rules. Most people have a trivial mapping. -- MST
