On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 at 14:45, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Il mar 16 feb 2021, 15:11 Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> ha scritto: >> >> On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 at 13:44, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: >> > >> > On 16/02/21 14:36, Peter Maydell wrote: >> > > Broadly, I think that being able to say 'foo' when foo is a >> > > boolean option being set to true is obvious and nice-to-use >> > > syntax, and I don't really want it to go away. 'nofoo' for >> > > 'foo=false' is much less obvious and I'm happy if we only >> > > support it as a special-case for 'nowait'. >> > >> > It really depends on what the default "-M pc,nographics" arguably makes >> > sense too (more so than "-M pc,graphics" since true is the default). >> >> Is anybody using 'pc,nographics' ? google didn't find any examples. > > > It's just an example that the prevalence of "nowait" over "wait" is simply > because the default of "server" is false while the default of "wait" is true. > Any boolean option whose default is true could benefit from a "no"-prefixed > short form. But I am pretty sure that there are users in the wild for noipv4 > or noipv6.
I think 'nowait' is special only because for so long our documentation has recommended 'server,nowait' (and possibly also because inetd uses 'nowait'?). I don't think it's inherently much better than "wait=off" or whatever. I just think that if we have a situation where exactly 1 boolean option has very widespread use of 'nofoo' then it's worth special casing it. If we had 50 boolean options which all had about 10% use of 'nofoo' vs 90% 'foo=off' that would be different. -- PMM
