Re: [PATCH for-6.1 3/4] qapi/qom.json: Do not use CONFIG_VIRTIO_CRYPTO in common code

[Markus Armbruster]

Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> writes:

> The ObjectType enum and ObjectOptions are included from qapi-types-qom.h
> into common code. We should not use target-specific config switches like
> CONFIG_VIRTIO_CRYPTO here, since this is not defined in common code and
> thus the enum will look differently between common and target specific
> code. For this case, it's hopefully enough to check for CONFIG_VHOST_CRYPTO
> only (which is a host specific config switch, i.e. it's the same on all
> targets).

Drawback: introspection now claims cryptodev-vhost-user is among the
values of qom-type, which is a lie when !defined(CONFIG_VIRTIO_CRYPTO).

Is this the first lie about QOM object types?

Do we care?

> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
> ---
>  qapi/qom.json | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/qapi/qom.json b/qapi/qom.json
> index db5ac419b1..cd0e76d564 100644
> --- a/qapi/qom.json
> +++ b/qapi/qom.json
> @@ -752,7 +752,7 @@
>      'cryptodev-backend',
>      'cryptodev-backend-builtin',
>      { 'name': 'cryptodev-vhost-user',
> -      'if': 'defined(CONFIG_VIRTIO_CRYPTO) && defined(CONFIG_VHOST_CRYPTO)' 
> },
> +      'if': 'defined(CONFIG_VHOST_CRYPTO)' },
>      'dbus-vmstate',
>      'filter-buffer',
>      'filter-dump',
> @@ -809,7 +809,7 @@
>        'cryptodev-backend':          'CryptodevBackendProperties',
>        'cryptodev-backend-builtin':  'CryptodevBackendProperties',
>        'cryptodev-vhost-user':       { 'type': 'CryptodevVhostUserProperties',
> -                                      'if': 'defined(CONFIG_VIRTIO_CRYPTO) 
> && defined(CONFIG_VHOST_CRYPTO)' },
> +                                      'if': 'defined(CONFIG_VHOST_CRYPTO)' },
>        'dbus-vmstate':               'DBusVMStateProperties',
>        'filter-buffer':              'FilterBufferProperties',
>        'filter-dump':                'FilterDumpProperties',

Could CryptodevVhostUserProperties be conditional, too?