qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 01/10] qapi: add Visitor interfaces for uint*


From: Anthony Liguori
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 01/10] qapi: add Visitor interfaces for uint*_t and int*_t
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 07:50:29 -0600
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110922 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.15

On 12/20/2011 05:12 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
+void visit_start_array(Visitor *v, void **obj, const char *name, size_t
elem_count,
+ size_t elem_size, Error **errp);
+void visit_next_array(Visitor *v, Error **errp);
+void visit_end_array(Visitor *v, Error **errp);
void visit_start_optional(Visitor *v, bool *present, const char *name,
Error **errp);
void visit_end_optional(Visitor *v, Error **errp);
void visit_type_enum(Visitor *v, int *obj, const char *strings[],
const char *kind, const char *name, Error **errp);
void visit_type_int(Visitor *v, int64_t *obj, const char *name, Error **errp);
+void visit_type_uint8(Visitor *v, uint8_t *obj, const char *name, Error 
**errp);
+void visit_type_uint16(Visitor *v, uint16_t *obj, const char *name, Error
**errp);
+void visit_type_uint32(Visitor *v, uint32_t *obj, const char *name, Error
**errp);
+void visit_type_uint64(Visitor *v, uint64_t *obj, const char *name, Error
**errp);
+void visit_type_int8(Visitor *v, int8_t *obj, const char *name, Error **errp);
+void visit_type_int16(Visitor *v, int16_t *obj, const char *name, Error 
**errp);
+void visit_type_int32(Visitor *v, int32_t *obj, const char *name, Error 
**errp);
+void visit_type_int64(Visitor *v, int64_t *obj, const char *name, Error 
**errp);

I think this approach is wrong. We're mashing the design of vmstate with that of
visitors and getting something that is not a visitor and not vmstate.

Thanks for taking a look at this.


Instead, I think you should have something like this:

struct VMStateInfo {
const char *name;
// takes a QMPOutputVisitor and a QEMUFile open for reading
int (*load)(QEMUFile *f, const char *name, Visitor *v,
size_t size, Error **err);

// takes a QMPInputVisitor and a QEMUFile open for writing
void (*save)(QEMUFile *f, const char *name, Visitor *v,
size_t size, Error **err);

// takes a QMPOutputVisitor and reads from *pv
int (*get)(Visitor *v, const char *name, void *pv,
size_t size, Error **err);

// takes a QMPInputVisitor and writes into *pv
void (*set)(Visitor *v, const char *name, void *pv,
size_t size, Error **err);
};

that splits the existing callbacks in two steps.

For saving, you would adapt your visitor-based vmstate "put" routines so that
they put things in a dictionary with no regard for integer types (a bit ugly for
uint64, but perfectly fine for everything else).

I don't understand this. The visitor interface should expose the C level primitives so that we can maintain fidelity when visiting something. The fact that it only knows about "ints" today is a short cut.

You take the dictionary from
the output visitor and (with an input visitor) you feed it back to the "save"
routines, which convert the dictionary to a QEMUFile. Both steps keep the types
internal to vmstate.

That doesn't make effective use of visitors. Visitors should preserve as much type information as possible. I'm not really sure I understand the whole QEMUFile tie in either. This series:

1) Makes a fully compatible QEMUFile input and output Visitor

2) Makes VMState no longer know about QEMUFile by using (1)

(2) is really the end goal. If we have an interface that still uses QEMUFile, we're doing something wrong IMHO.

For loading, it's the other way round: you interpret the vmstate with the
QEMUFile reading routines, and create a dictionary. Then make an input visitor
and use the vmstate "set" interpreter to fill in the struct fields.

I'm sorry for noticing this just now, I was waiting for Anthony's QOM plans to
be committed so that I could understand better how vmstate and QOM properties
would interact. In fact, it would be great and not hard if the struct<->visitor
step (get/set) was also exposed as a QOM property.

That's exactly why I'm so anxious to get this merged :-)

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

Paolo





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]