"Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> writes: > 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.
Even when most usage falls into the simple cases, you still have to explain all cases. An interface's complexity is a property of the interface, not of its usage.
