From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5EDCC433DB for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 06:53:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7EC7F619E5 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 06:53:13 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 7EC7F619E5 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:35386 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lOxOC-0005wT-Le for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 02:53:12 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:42272) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lOxMk-0004f0-FM for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 02:51:42 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([63.128.21.124]:42303) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lOxMi-0006J6-7s for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 02:51:42 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1616568699; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=7bM8S6LrQT6dn63SuCPilTd5S91IWhqVMtZnWcv06qU=; b=Fs31w+jPkuk5ehWNGL93OU4rI3XBomnRypbKVHMfaATnBGiSh5A+OW1mYAADq16RDP4f2U isKwxUIVQF4U6/kmHEGkSyUei9ei+v2SIZxPwSjy0viayjSEP6ZMeQMSM3tL4jqOG3sIaW xsr5jHUsWighkag13BVE/o6oSmWIOWY= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-544--alfLzC5OD-_coqgPz_etw-1; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 02:51:35 -0400 X-MC-Unique: -alfLzC5OD-_coqgPz_etw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 393D61005D47; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 06:51:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from blackfin.pond.sub.org (ovpn-114-17.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.114.17]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F22992C8CD; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 06:51:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by blackfin.pond.sub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 83E5211327E1; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 07:51:32 +0100 (CET) From: Markus Armbruster To: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 2/7] qapi/net.json: Add L4_Connection definition References: <20210319035508.113741-1-chen.zhang@intel.com> <20210319035508.113741-3-chen.zhang@intel.com> <877dm3i1qk.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <5b75057ecc784296aa271f5f6692906a@intel.com> <87k0pz4bg8.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <4ffb0d8b135b40caba777a830b70ae18@intel.com> <871rc6urdc.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <87mtutf3pv.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 07:51:32 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87mtutf3pv.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> (Markus Armbruster's message of "Wed, 24 Mar 2021 07:47:08 +0100") Message-ID: <878s6ddoy3.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.15 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=armbru@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain Received-SPF: pass client-ip=63.128.21.124; envelope-from=armbru@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Lukas Straub , Li Zhijian , Jason Wang , qemu-dev , "Zhang, Chen" , Zhang Chen Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" Markus Armbruster writes: > "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" writes: [...] >> I think there should also beb >> a separate type that represents an IP address+port, so that what you end >> up with is: >> >> IPFlowSpec >> ID >> Protocol >> Source >> Dest > > I understand the motivation. Three drawbacks, though. > > One, it gets us another level of nesting on the wire, i.e. something > like > > {"source": {"address": SRC-ADDR, "port": SRC-PORT}, > "destination": {"address": DST-ADDR, "port": DST-PORT}} > > instead of > > {"source-address": SRC-ADDR, "source-port": SRC-PORT, > "destination-address": DST-ADDR, "destination-port": DST-PORT} > > QMP clients shouldn't care. > > Two, we have many (address, port) pairs in the schema that don't use > nesting. Adding nesting sometimes makes QMP less consistent. > > Three, human-friendly interface wrappers tend to dislike nesting. This > particular case seems okay; we end up with dotted keys like > source.address instead of source-address. In a case where we need just > one (address, port), we'd get some-silly-name.address instead of just > address, though. > > I've occasionally felt a mild need for letting me say "this struct > member should be unboxed on the wire", i.e. have its curlies peeled off. > Never enough to justify the additional generator complexity, though. Just remembered we actually have ## # @InetSocketAddressBase: # # @host: host part of the address # @port: port part of the address ## { 'struct': 'InetSocketAddressBase', 'data': { 'host': 'str', 'port': 'str' } } It's from commit eb87203b64 "rbd: Reject -blockdev server.*.{numeric, to, ipv4, ipv6}".