Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> writes: > On 07/01/2020 15.27, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 03:20:40PM +0100, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >>> On 1/7/20 3:14 PM, Thomas Huth wrote: >>>> On 07/01/2020 13.54, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 01:23:18PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>>>>> On 07/01/20 13:18, Thomas Huth wrote: >>>>>>> I don't think we need a separate priority parameter here. But IMHO it's >>>>>>> really rather common practice to prioritize the last option. So while >>>>>>> it might be more "self-explanatory" to a CLI newbie if the first >>>>>>> occurrence got the highest priority, it might be rather confusing >>>>>>> instead for a CLI veteran...? >>>>>> >>>>>> Prioritising the last certainly makes sense for a choose-one-only >>>>>> option, but I'm not sure it's the same for a choose-best option. After >>>>>> all it was -machine accel=kvm:tcg, not -machine accel=tcg:kvm... >>>>> >>>>> IIUC, the main use case for specifying multiple accelerators is >>>>> so that lazy invokations can ask for a hardware virt, but then get >>>>> fallback to TCG if not available. For things that should be platform >>>>> portabile, there's more than just kvm to consider though, as we have >>>>> many accelerators. Listing all possible accelerators is kind of >>>>> crazy though no matter what the syntax is. >>>>> >>>>> How about taking a completely different approach, inspired by the >>>>> -cpu arg and implement: >>>>> >>>>> -machine accel=best >>>> >>>> Something like that sounds like the best solution to me, but I'd maybe >>>> rather not call it "best", since the definition of "best" might depend >>>> on your use-case (e.g. do you want to use a CPU close to the host or >>>> something different which might be better emulated by TCG?). >>>> >>>> What about "-accel any" or "-accel fastest" or something similar? >>> >>> 'any' is a russian roulette, you don't want it to return 'qtest' ;) >> >> We could make it return "qtest" only on April 1st ;-P > > ... or we finally dare to let QEMU chose the "best" accelerator by > default if no "-accel" option has been specified...
Changing a default that has ceased to make sense a decade ago? Are you out of your mind? ;-P [...]
