On 08/11/2018 18:14, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> Keeping in mind that I might be talking about extra challenges we
> won't address right now (no cart before the horse), I have new
> questions:
>
> Why you say backends are not a target configuration and
> accelerators are? What's the definition of "target
> configuration"?
Something that affects the way
> Are we explicitly restricting the scope of this work to
> enabling/disabling device emulation code right now? Why? Why
> wouldn't we use kconfig to enable/disable simple backends with no
> host dependency like SLIRP?
I think it would be more confusing if some backends were to use kconfig
and some wouldn't. We could certainly add something like
config VHOST_NET
depends on HOST_LINUX
default y
config SPICE
depends on HAVE_SPICE_SERVER
default Y
etc. but I think we agree it's more of a long term idea.
> Don't we want to make backends configurable per binary, too?
> e.g.: I would expect the default configuration for a NEMU-like
> binary to disable many backends.
Sure, we could do that. However, right now you cannot have multiple
binaries for a single target, so you couldn't have one single build
include both a "full-blown" and a "reduced" x86 target. Therefore,
including e.g. SLIRP in qemu-system-arm but not in qemu-system-x86_64
does not seem too interesting to me. It would be different if you could
build qemu-system-arm, qemu-system-x86_64, qemu-system-x86_64-lite, etc.
Paolo
>
>> It would surely be possible for configure to call into minikconf to
>> parse a configuration file and apply dependencies (do we actually have
>> dependencies across configure options?) or something like that, but
>> let's not put the cart before the horse...
>
> Agreed.
>
