All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
To: Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.odaki@daynix.com>
Cc: "Jason Wang" <jasowang@redhat.com>,
	"Dmitry Fleytman" <dmitry.fleytman@gmail.com>,
	"Sriram Yagnaraman" <sriram.yagnaraman@ericsson.com>,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
	"Luigi Rizzo" <rizzo@iet.unipi.it>,
	"Giuseppe Lettieri" <g.lettieri@iet.unipi.it>,
	"Vincenzo Maffione" <v.maffione@gmail.com>,
	"Andrew Melnychenko" <andrew@daynix.com>,
	"Yuri Benditovich" <yuri.benditovich@daynix.com>,
	"Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	"Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>,
	"Eduardo Habkost" <eduardo@habkost.net>,
	"Michael Roth" <michael.roth@amd.com>,
	"Marcel Apfelbaum" <marcel.apfelbaum@gmail.com>,
	"Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@linaro.org>,
	"Yanan Wang" <wangyanan55@huawei.com>,
	"Zhao Liu" <zhao1.liu@intel.com>, "Lei Yang" <leiyang@redhat.com>,
	qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] qdev-properties: Accept bool for OnOffAuto
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2025 16:29:03 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87cyfwxveo.fsf@pond.sub.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250108-virtio-v4-2-cbf0aa04c9f9@daynix.com> (Akihiko Odaki's message of "Wed, 08 Jan 2025 15:17:51 +0900")

Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.odaki@daynix.com> writes:

> Accept bool literals for OnOffAuto properties for consistency with bool
> properties. This enables users to set the "on" or "off" value in a
> uniform syntax without knowing whether the "auto" value is accepted.
> This behavior is especially useful when converting an existing bool
> property to OnOffAuto or vice versa.
>
> Signed-off-by: Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.odaki@daynix.com>
> ---
>  hw/core/qdev-properties.c | 17 ++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/core/qdev-properties.c b/hw/core/qdev-properties.c
> index 434a76f5036e..0081d79f9b7b 100644
> --- a/hw/core/qdev-properties.c
> +++ b/hw/core/qdev-properties.c
> @@ -491,6 +491,21 @@ const PropertyInfo qdev_prop_string = {
>      .set   = set_string,
>  };
>  
> +static void set_on_off_auto(Object *obj, Visitor *v, const char *name,
> +                            void *opaque, Error **errp)
> +{
> +    Property *prop = opaque;
> +    int *ptr = object_field_prop_ptr(obj, prop);
> +    bool value;
> +
> +    if (visit_type_bool(v, name, &value, NULL)) {
> +        *ptr = value ? ON_OFF_AUTO_ON : ON_OFF_AUTO_OFF;
> +        return;
> +    }
> +
> +    qdev_propinfo_set_enum(obj, v, name, opaque, errp);
> +}
> +
>  /* --- on/off/auto --- */
>  
>  const PropertyInfo qdev_prop_on_off_auto = {
> @@ -498,7 +513,7 @@ const PropertyInfo qdev_prop_on_off_auto = {
>      .description = "on/off/auto",
>      .enum_table = &OnOffAuto_lookup,
>      .get = qdev_propinfo_get_enum,
> -    .set = qdev_propinfo_set_enum,
> +    .set = set_on_off_auto,
>      .set_default_value = qdev_propinfo_set_default_value_enum,
>  };

The qdev properties defined with DEFINE_PROP_ON_OFF_AUTO() now
additionally accept bool.

The commit message tries to explain why this change is useful, but it
leaves me confused.

Does this solve a problem with existing properties?  If yes, what
exactly is the problem?

Or does this enable new uses of DEFINE_PROP_ON_OFF_AUTO()?

I'm trying to understand, but my gut feeling is "bad idea".

Having multiple ways to express the same thing is generally undesirable.
In this case, "foo": "on" and "foo": true, as well as "foo": "off" and
"foo": false.

Moreover, OnOffAuto then has two meanings: straightfoward enum as
defined in the QAPI schema, and the funny qdev property.  This is
definitely a bad idea.  DEFINE_PROP_T(), where T is some QAPI type,
should accept *exactly* the values of T.  If these properties need to
accept something else, use another name to not invite confusion.

If I understand the cover letter correctly, you want to make certain
bool properties tri-state for some reason.  I haven't looked closely
enough to judge whether that makes sense.  But do you really have to
change a whole bunch of unrelated properties to solve your problem?
This is going to be a very hard sell.



  parent reply	other threads:[~2025-02-05 15:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-01-08  6:17 [PATCH v4 0/4] virtio: Convert feature properties to OnOffAuto Akihiko Odaki
2025-01-08  6:17 ` [PATCH v4 1/4] qapi: Do not consume a value if failed Akihiko Odaki
2025-01-08  6:17 ` [PATCH v4 2/4] qdev-properties: Accept bool for OnOffAuto Akihiko Odaki
2025-01-10 11:09   ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2025-01-10 11:31     ` Akihiko Odaki
2025-01-10 12:16       ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2025-01-10 12:32         ` Akihiko Odaki
2025-02-06  9:43     ` Markus Armbruster
2025-02-05 15:29   ` Markus Armbruster [this message]
2025-02-06  6:01     ` Akihiko Odaki
2025-02-06  9:48       ` Markus Armbruster
2025-02-06 10:16         ` Akihiko Odaki
2025-02-06 13:23           ` BALATON Zoltan
2025-02-07  5:59             ` Akihiko Odaki
2025-02-07 12:31               ` Markus Armbruster
2025-02-07 12:46                 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2025-05-05  6:42                   ` Akihiko Odaki
2025-02-07 12:15             ` Markus Armbruster
2025-05-06 15:37           ` Markus Armbruster
2025-05-06 16:25             ` BALATON Zoltan
2025-05-08  7:09             ` Akihiko Odaki
2025-01-08  6:17 ` [PATCH v4 3/4] qdev-properties: Add DEFINE_PROP_ON_OFF_AUTO_BIT64() Akihiko Odaki
2025-01-08  6:17 ` [PATCH v4 4/4] virtio: Convert feature properties to OnOffAuto Akihiko Odaki
2025-01-09 10:06   ` Lei Yang
2025-01-09 10:56   ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2025-01-09 11:08     ` Akihiko Odaki
2025-01-09 11:13       ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2025-01-10 11:23   ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2025-01-10 11:39     ` Akihiko Odaki
2025-01-09 12:53 ` [PATCH v4 0/4] " Markus Armbruster
2025-01-10  4:42   ` Akihiko Odaki

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=87cyfwxveo.fsf@pond.sub.org \
    --to=armbru@redhat.com \
    --cc=akihiko.odaki@daynix.com \
    --cc=andrew@daynix.com \
    --cc=berrange@redhat.com \
    --cc=dmitry.fleytman@gmail.com \
    --cc=eduardo@habkost.net \
    --cc=g.lettieri@iet.unipi.it \
    --cc=jasowang@redhat.com \
    --cc=leiyang@redhat.com \
    --cc=marcel.apfelbaum@gmail.com \
    --cc=michael.roth@amd.com \
    --cc=mst@redhat.com \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=philmd@linaro.org \
    --cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
    --cc=rizzo@iet.unipi.it \
    --cc=sriram.yagnaraman@ericsson.com \
    --cc=v.maffione@gmail.com \
    --cc=wangyanan55@huawei.com \
    --cc=yuri.benditovich@daynix.com \
    --cc=zhao1.liu@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.