Eric Blake <[email protected]> writes: > On 03/20/2015 07:05 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> First of all, my apologies for being so late with this. I realized >> part way through the current development cycle that I couldn't do both >> the error work and my half of the block probing work we discussed back >> in November, so I punted the latter to the next cycle, missing the one >> little feature I quite obviously could do. >> >> Why is this "RFC for-2.3"? The patch is simple, and quite obviously >> does nothing unless you run with --no-format-probing. If libvirt >> wants it in 2.3, then I think we should consider it even at this late >> stage. If libvirt doesn't want it, or won't try to make use of it for >> another few months, I'm happy to drop the patch now and revisit the >> larger topic in the next cycle. >> >> I readily admit --no-format-probing is fugly. Better ideas are >> welcome. > > So, is it spelled '--no-format-probing', or is it spelled > '-no-format-probing'? It is in the same category as other flag > parameters like '-enable-fips' or '-no-user-config'.
Any QEMU option can be spelled both as -NAME and as --NAME. Rolling your very own command line parser is foolish, but the only way to stay design-flaw-compatible.
