Wanlong Gao <gaowanl...@cn.fujitsu.com> writes: > On 06/21/2013 12:02 AM, Bandan Das wrote: >> Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> writes: >> >>> Il 20/06/2013 15:26, Eduardo Habkost ha scritto: >>>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:52:42AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>>>> Il 20/06/2013 11:30, Igor Mammedov ha scritto: >>>>>>>>>>>> So, basically the format seemed easier to work with if we are >>>>>>>>>>>> thinking >>>>>>>>>>>> of using QemuOpts for -numa. Using -cpu rather than cpus probably >>>>>>>>>>>> makes it less ambiguous as well IMO. However, it's probably not a >>>>>>>>>>>> good idea >>>>>>>>>>>> if the current syntax is well established ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> libvirt uses the "cpus" option already, so we have to keep it working. >>>>>> Sure, we can leave it as it's now for some time while a new interface is >>>>>> introduced/adopted. And than later deprecate "cpus". >>>>> >>>>> So, you used a new name because the new behavior of "-numa >>>>> node,cpus=1-2,cpus=3-4" would be incompatible with the old. >>>> >>>> I don't think anybody uses "cpus=1-2,cpus=3-4" today, so I believe we >>>> can change its behavior. The problem was to get agreement on the syntax >>>> to represent multiple CPU ranges. >>> >>> Ok. I think almost everyone agreed on "cpus=1-2,cpus=3-4", which is >>> basically what Bandan's patch does minus s/cpu/cpus/. It matches what >>> already happens with other options (SLIRP), so it's hardly surprising. >> >> Good, so should I spin a new version with "cpus" ? > > I already merged your patch to my patch set "Add support for binding guest > numa nodes to host numa nodes" > since I should base on that. > > Thanks, > Wanlong Gao
Oh, great! Thank you for taking care of the "cpus" change. >> >> Also note that this patch actually doesn't add any extra code to support >> multiple cpus arguments. It all happens automatically as part of conversion >> to >> QemuOpts. So, if we need to revisit the syntax later, we can always do that. >> >> Bandan >>> Let's go on with that. >>> >>> Paolo >>> >>>>> Personally I don't think that's a problem, but I remember a long >>>>> discussion in the past. Igor/Eduardo, do you remember the conclusions? >>>> >>>> I don't remember seeing the discussion reach any conclusion, >>>> unfortunately. >>>> >> >>
