Re: [PATCH 1/4] qapi/qdev.json: add DEVICE_NOT_DELETED event

[Daniel Henrique Barboza]

On 3/23/21 3:00 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 3/12/21 2:07 PM, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
> > This new event informs QAPI listeners that a previously issued
> > 'device_del' command failed to delete the device from the machine.
> >
> > Note that no assertion can be made about the failure reason. The goal of
> > this event is to inform management that QEMU is not able to assess
> > whether the hotunplug is taking too long to complete or failed in the
> > guest and, as result, the device is not removed from QOM. When receiving
> > this event, users/management must check inside the guest to verify the
> > result of the hotunplug operation.
> >
> > This scenario happens with architectures where the guest does not have
> > an official way to report the hotunplug error back to the hypervisor,
> > such as PowerPC and the pseries machine type.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Henrique Barboza <danielhb413@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >   qapi/qdev.json | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >   1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/qapi/qdev.json b/qapi/qdev.json
> > index b83178220b..df9a1b9e67 100644
> > --- a/qapi/qdev.json
> > +++ b/qapi/qdev.json
> > @@ -124,3 +124,31 @@
> >   ##
> >   { 'event': 'DEVICE_DELETED',
> >     'data': { '*device': 'str', 'path': 'str' } }
> > +
> > +##
> > +# @DEVICE_NOT_DELETED:
> > +#
> > +# Emitted whenever the device removal process expired and the device
> > +# still exists in QOM. This indicates that the guest took too long
> > +# to acknowlege the device removal, and we can not be sure of whether
>
> acknowledge
>
> > +# the process will be completed in the guest later on or a guest
> > +# side error occurred.
> > +#
> > +# It is not safe to reuse the specified device ID.
> > +#
> > +# @device: device name
> > +#
> > +# @path: device path
> > +#
> > +# Since: 6.0
>
> This is a new event, and we've missed feature freeze; is this fixing a
> bug that was not present in 5.2 (in which case it is fine for -rc1), or
> is this a long-standing problem where one more release without the
> mechanism won't make life any worse?

I believe these events I'm trying to add can be postponed to the next release.



> > +#
> > +# Example:
> > +#
> > +# <- { "event": "DEVICE_NOT_DELETED",
> > +#      "data": { "device": "core1",
> > +#                "path": "/machine/peripheral/core1" },
> > +#      "timestamp": { "seconds": 1615570254, "microseconds": 573986 } }
> > +#
> > +##
> > +{ 'event': 'DEVICE_NOT_DELETED',
> > +  'data': { '*device': 'str', 'path': 'str' } }
> > \ No newline at end of file
>
> You'll want to fix that.


Yep, in both patches (1 and 3).


Thanks,


DHB


>