On 12/10/21 12:25, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
I can't disagree with this. If we carry on trying to evolve vl.c
incrementally we are doomed to be stuck with a horrible starstup
process for enternity (or at least as long as I'll still be
working as QEMU maintainer).
... and if you compare vl.c in 5.2 and now, and consider current vl.c to be
horrible, my knowedge of English does not include an adjective to describe
the 5.2 state. Some incremental work_is_ possible or even necessary, and
has been done already.
Right, I'm not saying vl.c hasn't improved, but we're never going
to get out of the peculiar historical startup ordering rules we
have today by incremental fixes, without breaking people.
Ok, so the confusion is between a horrible startup process and a
horrible startup interface. The latter cannot be improved
incrementally, the former can (to the point where adding a new
non-horrible frontend is "trivial").
Thanks,
Paolo
