On 03/26/2012 09:00 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> Yes, that's one reason. But maybe a user wants to have a
whole
>> different set of machine types and doesn't care to have the ones we
>> provide. Why prevent a user from doing this?
>
> How are we preventing a user from doing it? In what way is -nodefconfig
> helping it?
Let me explain it in a different way, perhaps.
We launch smbd in QEMU in order to do file sharing over slirp. One of
the historic problems we've had is that we don't assume root
privileges, yet want to be able to run smbd without using any of the
system configuration files.
You can do this by specify -s with the config file, and then in the
config file you can overload the various default paths (like private
dir, lock dir, etc.). In some cases, earlier versions of smbd didn't
allow you to change private dir.
You should be able to tell a well behaved tool not to read any
configuration/data files and explicitly tell it where/how to read
them. We cannot exhaustively anticipate every future use case of QEMU.
100% agree. But that says nothing about a text file that defines
"westmere" as a set of cpu flags, as long as we allow the user to define
"mywestmere" as a different set. That is because target-x86_64.cfg does
not configure anything, it just defines a macro, which qemu doesn't
force you to use.
But beyond the justification for -nodefconfig, the fact is that it
exists today, and has a specific semantic. If we want to have a
different semantic, we should introduce a new option (-no-user-config).
Sure.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function