From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52524) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Uzm9z-0000IY-12 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 07:14:15 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Uzm9u-0000ec-U4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 07:14:10 -0400 Received: from smtp.citrix.com ([66.165.176.89]:47745) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Uzm9u-0000dh-Om for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 07:14:06 -0400 Message-ID: <51E7CDF7.60000@eu.citrix.com> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 12:13:59 +0100 From: George Dunlap MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1373624555-4403-1-git-send-email-fabio.fantoni@m2r.biz> <51DFE351.4000102@eu.citrix.com> <51DFF83A.8030802@m2r.biz> <51E021B7.2050808@eu.citrix.com> <51E3BC9B.8080503@m2r.biz> <20967.52442.308010.563288@mariner.uk.xensource.com> In-Reply-To: <20967.52442.308010.563288@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3] libxl: usb2 and usb3 controller support for upstream qemu List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Ian Jackson Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Ian.Campbell@citrix.com, Stefano.Stabellini@eu.citrix.com, wei.lui2@citrix.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Fabio Fantoni , pbonzini@redhat.com On 18/07/13 12:09, Ian Jackson wrote: > Fabio Fantoni writes ("Re: [PATCH v3] libxl: usb2 and usb3 controller support for upstream qemu"): >> Il 12/07/2013 17:33, George Dunlap ha scritto: >>> On 12/07/13 13:36, Fabio Fantoni wrote: > [someone wrote:] >>>>> I'm just curious, why is this so complicated? Is this likely to be >>>>> fragile and break in the future? > ... >>>> I tried already but there are problems with retrocompatibility: >>>> http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2013-07/msg00491.html >>>> I was also asking if it is possible to remove some hardcoded options >>>> without breaking something but I had no reply. >>> So this seems to be a response to the first paragraph ("why is this so >>> complicated, is it fragile"). > I'm afraid that I don't think it's really a sufficient response to > "why is this so complicated, is it fragile?". "I don't know" is not > very convincing :-). > > My worry would be that these options would change their meaning in the > future, or indeed that the whole edifice which requires callers to > specify things at this excruciating level of detail might (sensibly!) > be abolished. So far qemu has been pretty good about supporting deprecated command-line arguments; e.g., libxl still passes outdated usb parameters to qemu-xen. -George From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: George Dunlap Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] libxl: usb2 and usb3 controller support for upstream qemu Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 12:13:59 +0100 Message-ID: <51E7CDF7.60000@eu.citrix.com> References: <1373624555-4403-1-git-send-email-fabio.fantoni@m2r.biz> <51DFE351.4000102@eu.citrix.com> <51DFF83A.8030802@m2r.biz> <51E021B7.2050808@eu.citrix.com> <51E3BC9B.8080503@m2r.biz> <20967.52442.308010.563288@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20967.52442.308010.563288@mariner.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org To: Ian Jackson Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Ian.Campbell@citrix.com, Stefano.Stabellini@eu.citrix.com, wei.lui2@citrix.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Fabio Fantoni , pbonzini@redhat.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 18/07/13 12:09, Ian Jackson wrote: > Fabio Fantoni writes ("Re: [PATCH v3] libxl: usb2 and usb3 controller support for upstream qemu"): >> Il 12/07/2013 17:33, George Dunlap ha scritto: >>> On 12/07/13 13:36, Fabio Fantoni wrote: > [someone wrote:] >>>>> I'm just curious, why is this so complicated? Is this likely to be >>>>> fragile and break in the future? > ... >>>> I tried already but there are problems with retrocompatibility: >>>> http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2013-07/msg00491.html >>>> I was also asking if it is possible to remove some hardcoded options >>>> without breaking something but I had no reply. >>> So this seems to be a response to the first paragraph ("why is this so >>> complicated, is it fragile"). > I'm afraid that I don't think it's really a sufficient response to > "why is this so complicated, is it fragile?". "I don't know" is not > very convincing :-). > > My worry would be that these options would change their meaning in the > future, or indeed that the whole edifice which requires callers to > specify things at this excruciating level of detail might (sensibly!) > be abolished. So far qemu has been pretty good about supporting deprecated command-line arguments; e.g., libxl still passes outdated usb parameters to qemu-xen. -George