[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH qemu] qom: Document qom/device-list-properties i
From: |
Paolo Bonzini |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH qemu] qom: Document qom/device-list-properties implementation specific |
Date: |
Wed, 2 May 2018 14:42:19 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0 |
On 02/05/2018 14:36, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> The purpose of this command is to tell people/tools what they can pass
>> to -device/-object/device_add/object_add, so the real question is
>> whether there are cases where it falls short of that purpose.
>>
>> If not,
>
> Do we have to be certain? Or would "we don't think so" be enough?
I think it's enough.
>> maybe the wording for the .json file could be something like:
>>
>> Objects can create properties at runtime, for example to describe
>> links between different devices and/or objects. These properties
>> are not included in the output of this command.
>
> Not bad.
Thanks. :)
> In theory, objects can also create properties in response to non-default
> configuration, and these would also not be included. Objects could even
> create a property with the same name, but different type or description.
> Arguably capital-letter Bad Ideas, but nothing prevents such misuse.
>
> Since I'm in a generous mood, I'd rate the thing at Rusty API level 4
> "Follow common convention and you'll get it right."
>
> https://ozlabs.org/~rusty/index.cgi/tech/2008-03-30.html
> https://ozlabs.org/~rusty/index.cgi/tech/2008-04-01.html
>
> If dynamic properties are really just for internal use
I wouldn't say they are for internal use. They are somewhat orthogonal
to the _intended_ use case of this command though. Somebody is bound
to be annoyed by them anyway, but that's sort of expected with dynamic
stuff.
> , as you seem to
> suggest in Message-ID:
> <address@hidden>, then we should've had
> the common sense to unambiguously separate them from the user-facing
> properties. Can we still do that?
We do have infrastructure for class properties, we just don't use it much.
Paolo
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH qemu] qom: Document qom/device-list-properties implementation specific, (continued)
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH qemu] qom: Document qom/device-list-properties implementation specific, Alexey Kardashevskiy, 2018/05/01
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH qemu] qom: Document qom/device-list-properties implementation specific, Markus Armbruster, 2018/05/02
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH qemu] qom: Document qom/device-list-properties implementation specific, Paolo Bonzini, 2018/05/02
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH qemu] qom: Document qom/device-list-properties implementation specific, Alexey Kardashevskiy, 2018/05/02
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH qemu] qom: Document qom/device-list-properties implementation specific, Paolo Bonzini, 2018/05/02
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH qemu] qom: Document qom/device-list-properties implementation specific, Alexey Kardashevskiy, 2018/05/03
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH qemu] qom: Document qom/device-list-properties implementation specific, Paolo Bonzini, 2018/05/03
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH qemu] qom: Document qom/device-list-properties implementation specific, Markus Armbruster, 2018/05/02
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH qemu] qom: Document qom/device-list-properties implementation specific, Paolo Bonzini, 2018/05/02
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH qemu] qom: Document qom/device-list-properties implementation specific, Markus Armbruster, 2018/05/02
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH qemu] qom: Document qom/device-list-properties implementation specific,
Paolo Bonzini <=
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH qemu] qom: Document qom/device-list-properties implementation specific, Markus Armbruster, 2018/05/02
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH qemu] qom: Document qom/device-list-properties implementation specific, Paolo Bonzini, 2018/05/02