[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 7/8] qmp: Support abstract classes on device-

From: Markus Armbruster
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 7/8] qmp: Support abstract classes on device-list-properties
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2016 16:45:17 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)

Eduardo Habkost <address@hidden> writes:

> (CCing libvirt people, as I forgot to CC them)
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 03:07:23PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 23:48:06 -0200
>> Eduardo Habkost <address@hidden> wrote:
>> > When an abstract class is used on device-list-properties, we can
>> > simply return the class properties registered for the class.
>> > 
>> > This will be useful if management software needs to query for
>> > supported options that apply to all devices of a given type (e.g.
>> > options supported by all CPU models, options supported by all PCI
>> > devices).
>> Patch looks fine to me but I'm not qmp interface guru
>> so I'd leave review up to maintainers.
>> One question though,
>> How would management software discover typename of abstract class?
> It depends on the use case. On some cases, management may already
> have bus-specific logic that will know what's the base type it
> needs to query (e.g. it may query "pci-device" to find out if all
> PCI devices support a given option). On other cases, it may be
> discovered using other commands.

The stated purpose of this feature is to let management software "query
for supported options that apply to all devices of a given type".  I
suspect that when management software has a notion of "a given type", it
knows its name.

Will management software go fishing for subtype relationships beyond the
types it knows?  I doubt it.  Of course, management software developers
are welcome to educate me :)

> For the CPU case, I will propose adding the base QOM CPU typename
> in the query-target command.

Does this type name vary?  If yes, can you give examples?

>> Perhaps this patch should be part of some other series.
> This is a valid point. In this case, it depends on the approach
> we want to take: do we want to provide a flexible interface for
> management, let them find ways to make it useful and give us
> feedback on what is lacking; or do we want to provide the new
> interface only after we have specified the complete solution for
> the problem?
> I don't know the answer. I will let the qdev/QOM/QMP maintainers
> answer that.

I'm reluctant to add QMP features just because we think they might be
useful to someone.  We should talk to users to confirm our hunch before
we act on it.

That said, this one isn't exactly a biggie.

reply via email to

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