|
From: | Anthony Liguori |
Subject: | Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/18] qom: dynamic properties and composition tree |
Date: | Thu, 01 Dec 2011 09:01:37 -0600 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.21) Gecko/20110831 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.13 |
On 12/01/2011 08:48 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 12/01/2011 04:42 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:We need good tools to allow easy review of the ABI bits hiding in patches, and to maintain ABI compatibility. Something like qemu-print-abi that dumps all properties for all devices. Patches could show the ABI changes by including a diff of the output of this program from before and after a change, and we could add similar tests for backwards compatibility.I'm not sure that we want this interface to be backwards compatible. I actually think we should provide a higher level interface that's explicitly there for compatibility. Probably in the form of a C library that can be documented and reasoned with better.Does this force anyone who wants a stable ABI to use this library? I don't have a good picture of this library. If FooState has a bar propery, do you generate qemu_foo_get_bar() and qemu_foo_set_bar() accessors?
This is all extremely low level stuff. My view is that if you are a user that cares about backwards compatibility, you probably don't want all of this low level stuff in the first place.
I think we need to provide two classes of interfaces. A low-level interface that only something like libvirt would consume that is not 100% backwards compatible and a higher-level interface that less sophisticated tools would consume.
If we provide a not 100% backwards compatible interface, then we would also need to provide a good introspection/capabilities mechanism so that something like libvirt could find out whether a feature was available or whether a device has changed significantly.
To be very clear, I think "-drive if=virtio" should be absolutely stable regardless of what we do to the virtio device model. However, I want the flexibility to remove "-device virtio-blk-pci" and replace it with "-device virtio-pci,id=foo -device virtio-blk,bus=foo".
We would provide a means to enumerate supported devices so that things like libvirt could see that virtio-blk-pci is not valid in this new version but now there is a virtio-pci and virtio-blk device.
Regards, Anthony Liguori
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |