Eric Blake writes:
> On 10/26/2015 07:12 AM, Lluís Vilanova wrote:
>> Denis V Lunev writes:
>>
>>> From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com>
>>> This is a bit easier to use than "-trace" if you are also enabling
>>> other kinds of logging. It is also more discoverable for experienced
>>> QEMU users, and accessible from user-mode emulators.
>>
>> I'm not sure this should be added, since the same functionality is also
>> available through "-trace enable=<pattern>" (and the shortcut "-trace
>> <pattern>").
> Having more than one way to do something is not necessarily bad; it does
> imply more maintenance to keep both ways working, but if one way is more
> discoverable than the other it may be worth it.
Certainly true. I just find it confusing to have the same functionality
available through different forms.
>>
>> Also, I'd rather fold event name discovery into "-trace enable=?" (and the
>> shortcut "-trace ?"), mimicking the format already available for CPUs ("-cpu
>> ?").
>>
> If we do that, we should also support '-trace enable=help', because ? is
> a shell metacharacter, and we have been moving towards using 'help'
> rather than '?' to minimize the need for shell quoting when asking for help.
Oh, I wasn't aware of the "deprecation" of '?'. Then it certainly makes more
sense to use 'help'.
Thanks,
Lluis
--
"And it's much the same thing with knowledge, for whenever you learn
something new, the whole world becomes that much richer."
-- The Princess of Pure Reason, as told by Norton Juster in The Phantom
Tollbooth
