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,URIBL_BLOCKED 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 94F23C433DB for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 06:48:51 +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 1AD42619A4 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 06:48:51 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 1AD42619A4 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]:57074 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lOxJx-0002ZK-Nv for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 02:48:49 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:41718) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lOxIc-00028X-Lz for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 02:47:27 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]:55837) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lOxIR-0003r7-Pz for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 02:47:25 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1616568433; 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=s7WSF/HtbfExQF4O5vDNCd61cNVYKWAzeGkQrXTl/8I=; b=BZEUhIhJu84HxPi9jarZbjYIklE0xtMjNWc+eIS+rfDF+GI0CuMCA0iyrhF+XLmSDK8hmN gAIuCz2KqfhIjWRCMMBzWD5eCs/sOqGN8DDCX3FKW9D7WOhKxAdIlfU/VisjgGuNepiRq6 QoBZLnAWUzfwc+NUzfj7AQAX3/PYsAY= 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-254-Vv1POjeJMYqSq_n9gRsYGg-1; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 02:47:11 -0400 X-MC-Unique: Vv1POjeJMYqSq_n9gRsYGg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 828CF107ACCA; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 06:47:10 +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 2864F10027C4; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 06:47:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: by blackfin.pond.sub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id AFF2811327E1; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 07:47:08 +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> Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 07:47:08 +0100 In-Reply-To: (David Alan Gilbert's message of "Tue, 23 Mar 2021 20:14:39 +0000") Message-ID: <87mtutf3pv.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 2.84 on 10.5.11.22 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=170.10.133.124; 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" "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" writes: > * Markus Armbruster (armbru@redhat.com) wrote: >> "Zhang, Chen" writes: >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Markus Armbruster >> [...] >> >> Naming the argument type L4_Connection is misleading. >> >> >> >> Even naming the match arguments L4_Connection would be misleading. >> >> "Connection" has a specific meaning in networking. There are TCP >> >> connections. There is no such thing as an UDP connection. >> >> >> >> A TCP connection is uniquely identified by a pair of endpoints, i.e. by source >> >> address, source port, destination address, destination port. >> >> Same for other connection-oriented protocols. The protocol is not part of >> >> the connection. Thus, L4_Connection would be misleading even for the >> >> connection-oriented case. >> >> >> >> You need a named type for colo-passthrough-add's argument because you >> >> share it with colo-passthrough-del. I'm not sure that's what we want (I'm >> >> going to write more on that in a moment). If it is what we want, then please >> >> pick a another, descriptive name. >> > >> > What do you think the "L4BypassRule" or "NetworkRule" ? >> >> NetworkRule is too generic. >> >> What about ColoPassthroughRule? > > Which is a bit specific; there's not actually anything Colo specific in > there; can I suggest 'L4FlowSpec'; "A bit too specific" is mostly harmless, since we can rename types at any time (they are not visible in external interfaces). This is *not* an objection to less specific names. All I want is names that don't give me wrong ideas on the thing's purpose. L4FlowSpec and IPFlowSpec (below) feel fine in that regard. > 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.