Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC 0/2] s390x: cut down on unattached devices

[Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>]

On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 15:41:21 +0100
Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> On 11/28/2017 04:21 PM, Halil Pasic wrote:
> [..]
> >>> Otherwise at first glance both patches seem sane.  
> >>
> >> Can I count this as an ack, or do you plan to do more review?
> >>  
> > 
> > Yes I was planning to give it another look. And I do already
> > have questions. Isn't the QOM composition tree API? I mean
> > let's assume the QMP commands working on this tree are not completely
> > useless. How is client code (management software) supposed to work,
> > assumed it can rely on paths of e.g. properties being stable. Just
> > imagine we had this default-cssid property (for the sake of the
> > argument, not like we want it) on the css bridge.  
> 
> Ping! I would like to get this clarified before proceeding with reviewing
> this series.

[It might be helpful to not drop cc:s.]

I don't think we really want a static tree. As long as the devices are
locateable, it should be fine.

> 
> > 
> > Now if the composition tree is API then these can only be bug fixes
> > (IMHO).
> > 
> > There are also other oddities I've spotted. My idea was to put
> > this composition tree discussion on hold until the vfio-ccw stuff
> > is sorted out. I would certainly like to build a better understanding.
> > 
> > Halil
> >   
> 
> [..]
> 
>