On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:25:36 -0500 Anthony Liguori <aligu...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> On 06/29/2012 09:18 AM, Andreas Färber wrote: > > Am 25.06.2012 22:39, schrieb Luiz Capitulino: > >> On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 22:26:58 +0200 > >> Jan Kiszka<jan.kis...@web.de> wrote: > >> > >>> On 2012-06-25 18:55, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > >>>> Allow for disabling memory merge support (KSM on Linux), which is > >>>> enabled by default otherwise. > >>> > >>> -machine mem_merge=on|off? > >> > >> That's possible. But if we do this, then I think that the set-memory-merge > >> QMP > >> command should be dropped in favor of doing the same thing via machine > >> properties, which should be possible once we convert machine types to QOM? > > > > Machine QOM'ification has been requested to be postponed by Anthony, so > > that we can do it really cleanly when we do it. > > > > I don't think we have any official guidelines for QOM naming, but it > > seemed to me an unwritten rule that we use the dash for separating name > > components whereas command line options coming from KVM seem to use > > underscore. For the CPU those were written in stone already so I > > manually "translated" '_' to '-' there. Might be worth thinking about > > for this and future command line / property additions. > > Yes, it would be better to use '-'s instead of '_'s. You mean we should start doing this right now (then my new option would be mem-merge) or for future QOM work?
