On Mon, 2009-07-20 at 14:39 +0200, Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 12:51:15PM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
--- a/src/qemu_conf.h +++ b/src/qemu_conf.h @@ -58,6 +58,11 @@ enum qemud_cmd_flags { QEMUD_CMD_FLAG_KVM = (1 << 13), /* Whether KVM is compiled in */ QEMUD_CMD_FLAG_DRIVE_FORMAT = (1 << 14), /* Is -drive format= avail */ QEMUD_CMD_FLAG_VGA = (1 << 15), /* Is -vga avail */ + + /* features added in qemu-0.10.0 */ + QEMUD_CMD_FLAG_0_10 = (1 << 16), + QEMUD_CMD_FLAG_NET_NAME = QEMUD_CMD_FLAG_0_10, /* -net ...,name=str */ + QEMUD_CMD_FLAG_HOST_NET_ADD = QEMUD_CMD_FLAG_0_10, /* host_net_add monitor command */ };
Hum, defining multiple time the same value in an enum, maybe that's fine but that looks weird to me, especially as each entry so far was about separated capabilities, independantly of the potential version.
Not a big deal but what do others think ?
Well my thinking was: - We can't easily probe for the monitor command without a bunch of code - The name param was only introduced in 0.10 - You need both for nic hotplug - Parsing 'qemu -help' sucks and qemu has a much saner release cycle now, so relying on version numbers makes more sense - The FLAG_0_10 thing is there mostly as documentation and we can easily split it into two flags if we need to in future But agree it's not a big deal - willing to do whatever I'm told to here and I'm guessing danpb has a firm opinion on it :-) Cheers, Mark.