On 07/06/2018 13:27, Thomas Huth wrote: >> As to "-enable-kvm", I don't see anything wrong with users using it, or >> even with occasionally adding more options like it. However, we should >> warn developers that such simple options should be syntactic sugar for a >> structured (i.e. QemuOpts-based) option like "-accel", and that it >> should only be done for similarity with existing options. > Honestly, in this case I think it's just confusing for the normal users, > and not sugar (anymore). If I'm an unexperienced user who wants to > enable KVM, and I see multiple options that seem to be related, I wonder > whether they do the same or whether there's a difference, and which one > is preferred. And "-accel kvm" is even less to type than "-enable-kvm", > so there is really no advantage for "-enable-kvm" anymore. I think we > should remove "-enable-kvm" and "-enable-hax" from qemu-doc.texi and > only list it in the new legacy chapter / document.
Well, there's also the issue of distros shipping qemu-kvm binaries. I think those should be provided by upstream. If we do that, then we're perhaps in a better position to place --enable-kvm under the rug. Paolo
