On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 11:08:16AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> Exactly. The types are no different, so there's no
reason to
>> discriminate against types that happen to live in qemu-provided data
>> files vs. qemu code. They aren't instantiated, so we lose nothing by
>> creating the factories (just so long as the factories aren't
>> mass-producing objects).
>
>
> At some point, I'd like to have type modules that are shared objects.
> I'd like QEMU to start with almost no builtin types and allow the user
> to configure which modules get loaded.
>
> In the long term, I'd like QEMU to be a small, robust core with the
> vast majority of code relegated to modules with the user ultimately in
> control of module loading.
>
> Yes, I'd want some module autoloading system but there should always
> be a way to launch QEMU without loading any modules and then load a
> very specific set of modules (as defined by the user).
>
> You can imagine this being useful for something like Common Criteria
> certifications.
Okay.
Modularised minimal QEMU may be a good thing, but how -nodefconfig helps
here? Won't you have the same effect if QEMU will load modules on demand,
only when they are actually needed (regardless of -nodefconfig). i.e
virtio-blk is loaded only if there is -device virtio-blk somewhere in
configuration.
> It's obviously defined for a given release, just not defined
long term.
>
>> If I see something like -nodefconfig, I assume it will create a bare
>> bones guest that will not depend on any qemu defaults and will be stable
>> across releases.
>
> That's not even close to what -nodefconfig is. That's pretty much
> what -nodefaults is but -nodefaults has also had a fluid definition
> historically.
Okay. Let's just make sure to document -nodefconfig as version specific
and -nodefaults as the stable way to create a bare bones guest (and
define exactly what that means).
What is the reason libvirt uses -nodefconfig instead of -nodefaults now?
What the former does for them that the later doesn't?
--
Gleb.