Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/2 v16] fsdev: add IO throttle support to fsdev devices

[Greg Kurz]

On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 10:01:09 -0600
Eric Blake <address@hidden> wrote:

> On 02/22/2017 07:41 AM, Greg Kurz wrote:
> > Eric,
> > 
> > I fully understand your concern about the missing QMP bits, but given the 
> > other
> > comments people made on this series, I'd like to move forward and merge it 
> > for
> > 2.9, without the 'x-' prefixed options. Is it okay with you ?  
> 
> Yes, I think we'll be okay. Libvirt will just be unable to recognize the
> feature until the QMP bits are in place.
> 

Ok. I'll work this out with Pradeep for 2.10.

> 
> >>>> If it cannot be probed via QMP, then libvirt will most likely assume
> >>>> that it does not exist.  I guess we're okay having command line only in
> >>>> 2.9 if you can't get QMP working, because libvirt will just never drive
> >>>> the feature until 2.10 when QMP is available; but then we risk the
> >>>> command line subtly changing and breaking someone else that was using
> >>>> the command line without QMP.  Maybe the safest approach is to just use
> >>>> the 'x-' prefix to the command line portion, until the feature is 
> >>>> complete.
> >>>>     
> >>>
> >>> The semantics here are exactly the same as for block devices. The
> >>> command line options added to -fsdev are the very same already used
> >>> by -drive for years.
> >>>
> >>> Patch 2/2 in this series even factors them out to a common header file
> >>> to be used by fsdev and blockdev. I really don't expect any modification
> >>> at all on the command line (nor the other people who reviewed that patch
> >>> obviously)... are you suggesting that we should put 2/2 on hold and
> >>> use the 'x-' prefix anyway ?    
> >>
> >> I see these parameter names as stable.  There is little risk that they
> >> would change.  
> 
> We just need to be sure that when we do add QMP, that it doesn't use
> names that differ from the command line (blockdev is an example where we
> weren't careful in 2.8, and had to rename things in 2.9 to be
> consistent, and I want to avoid repeating that mistake).
> 

Can you provide some pointers on what had to be fixed in blockdev ?

Thanks.

--
Greg

pgpJ20l0Bj07C.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature