Re: [PATCH v9] qapi: introduce 'query-kvm-cpuid' action

[Eduardo Habkost]

On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 07:52:47AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 05:53:11PM +0200, Claudio Fontana wrote:
> >> On 6/17/21 5:39 PM, Valeriy Vdovin wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 04:14:17PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> >> Claudio Fontana <cfontana@suse.de> writes:
> >> >>
> >> >>> On 6/17/21 1:09 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> >> >>>> If it just isn't implemented for anything but KVM, then putting "kvm"
> >> >>>> into the command name is a bad idea.  Also, the commit message should
> >> >>>> briefly note the restriction to KVM.
> >> >>
> >> >> Perhaps this one is closer to reality.
> >> >>
> >> > I agree.
> >> > What command name do you suggest?
> >> 
> >> query-exposed-cpuid?
> >
> > Pasting the reply I sent at [1]:
> >
> >   I don't really mind how the command is called, but I would prefer
> >   to add a more complex abstraction only if maintainers of other
> >   accelerators are interested and volunteer to provide similar
> >   functionality.  I don't want to introduce complexity for use
> >   cases that may not even exist.
> >
> > I'm expecting this to be just a debugging mechanism, not a stable
> > API to be maintained and supported for decades.  (Maybe a "x-"
> > prefix should be added to indicate that?)
> >
> > [1] 
> > 20210602204604.crsxvqixkkll4ef4@habkost.net">https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/20210602204604.crsxvqixkkll4ef4@habkost.net
> 
> x-query-x86_64-cpuid?
> 

Unless somebody wants to spend time designing a generic
abstraction around this (and justify the extra complexity), this
is a KVM-specific command.  Is there a reason to avoid "kvm" in
the command name?

-- 
Eduardo