On 10/25/2012 03:03 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
While I agree that this design is broken I don't think we can do this.
Okay, for now we only support 0; but what if in the future we invent a
new flag? With current virsh one is able to use it however with your
patch he isn't.
But you could apply that argument to any number of other interfaces that
take a flags argument. virsh simply does not know how to export
arbitrary flags that were only added to newer servers - you HAVE to
upgrade your virsh to match.
Therefore I'd rather see slightly different approach. Like we do for
other broken options/arguments in virsh - hide it, don't mention it
anywhere but keep the code.
I disagree - there's no point in keeping a hidden argument. It is a
disservice to users to make them have to pass a numeric flags value - if
they know they are talking to a new enough server that supports a new
flag, then they should be able to upgrade to a new enough virsh that
exposes that new flag as a human-readable option name, or directly code
their task using C or python bindings instead of bothering with virsh.
I think the patch is fine as-is.
--
Eric Blake eblake(a)redhat.com +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library
http://libvirt.org