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=-3.9 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 995C7C433DF for ; Sat, 10 Oct 2020 04:42:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4619B20709 for ; Sat, 10 Oct 2020 04:42:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="Ru2QOGCu" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726612AbgJJEmm (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Oct 2020 00:42:42 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([216.205.24.124]:28688 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725844AbgJJEmC (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Oct 2020 00:42:02 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1602304916; 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=vs68KN6xy3tJ50oUSJLZxJXUkrP9J+jFxUF8lhzeWpw=; b=Ru2QOGCuuBcJdjCPovrBQ8RYi1broBeEmgUYaObc7NFC+F4b9jm0gVmxnY2fWFX81AzWYO tRUbE/AwW9L66h3G0DaIF1zX9TFi5zjFRXX8Mq8/0y3XsyvyqhUEA5u0h2abp6VZuq6Eb2 6YuNgnFjSFRkStHLW7at+BaLU9KdUQs= 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-225-4E_qwnJ1OKyYLgLWbobiBA-1; Sat, 10 Oct 2020 00:41:54 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 4E_qwnJ1OKyYLgLWbobiBA-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 3504EEDBFC; Sat, 10 Oct 2020 04:41:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from blackfin.pond.sub.org (ovpn-112-182.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.112.182]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D58655779; Sat, 10 Oct 2020 04:41:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: by blackfin.pond.sub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9E36011329AE; Sat, 10 Oct 2020 06:41:48 +0200 (CEST) From: Markus Armbruster To: Eduardo Habkost Cc: Kevin Wolf , Daniel Berrange , kvm-devel , Stefan Hajnoczi , qemu-devel , =?utf-8?Q?Marc-Andr=C3=A9?= Lureau , Paolo Bonzini , John Snow Subject: Re: KVM call for agenda for 2020-10-06 References: <874kndm1t3.fsf@secure.mitica> <20201005144615.GE5029@stefanha-x1.localdomain> <8fce8f99-56bd-6a87-9789-325d6ffff54d@redhat.com> <20201008080345.GB4672@linux.fritz.box> <20201009164548.GC7303@habkost.net> Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2020 06:41:48 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20201009164548.GC7303@habkost.net> (Eduardo Habkost's message of "Fri, 9 Oct 2020 12:45:48 -0400") Message-ID: <87sgamae0j.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.15 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org Eduardo Habkost writes: > On Thu, Oct 08, 2020 at 10:03:45AM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote: >> Am 07.10.2020 um 19:50 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben: >> > On 06/10/20 20:21, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: >> > > * Does command-line order matter? >> > > * Two options: allow any order OR left-to-right ordering >> > > * Andrea Bolognani: Most users expect left-to-right ordering, >> > > why allow any order? >> > > * Eduardo Habkost: Can we enforce left-to-right ordering or do >> > > we need to follow the deprecation process? >> > > * Daniel Berrange: Solve compability by introducing new >> > > binaries without the burden of backwards compability >> > >> > I think "new binaries" shouldn't even have a command line; all >> > configuration should happen through QMP commands. Those are naturally >> > time-ordered, which is equivalent to left-to-right, and therefore the >> > question is sidestepped. Perhaps even having a command line in >> > qemu-storage-daemon was a mistake. >> > >> > For "old binaries" we are not adding too many options, so apart from the >> > nasty distinction between early and late objects we're at least not >> > making it worse. >> > >> > The big question to me is whether the configuration should be >> > QAPI-based, that is based on QAPI structs, or QMP-based. If the latter, >> > "object-add" (and to a lesser extent "device-add") are fine mechanisms >> > for configuration. There is still need for better QOM introspection, >> > but it would be much simpler than doing QOM object creation via QAPI >> > struct, if at all possible. >> >> I would strongly vote for QAPI-based. It doesn't have to be fully based >> on QAPI structs internally, but the defining property for me is that the >> external interface is described in the QAPI schema (which implies using >> QAPI structs for the external facing code). >> >> Not only is it a PITA to work with things like "gen": false or "props": >> "any", but having two systems to configure things side by side is also >> highly inconsistent. >> >> I have recently discussed object-add with Markus, or to be more precise, >> a QAPIfied --object in qsd wrapping it. This doesn't work well without >> having a schema. I believe the right thing to do there is build a QAPI >> schema describing the existing QOM properties in a first step (which >> already gives you all of the advantages of QAPI like introspection), and >> then in a second step generate the respective QOM code for initialising >> the properties from the schema instead of duplicating it. >> >> This can get challenging with dynamic properties, but as far as I can >> see, user creatable objects only have class properties or object >> properties created right in .instance_init (which should be equivalent). > > I've just submitted a series to ensure 100% of > TYPE_USER_CREATABLE types have only class properties: > > https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/20201009160122.1662082-1-ehabkost@redhat.com Lovely idea! Additional benefit: QOM introspection becomes more useful. >> As the number of user creatable objects isn't too large, this shouldn't >> be too hard. I'm less sure about device-add, though in theory the same >> approch would probably result in the best interface. > > Doing the same for all user creatable device types would be nice > too. We can use the property locking mechanism from the series above > to find out how bad the situation is. Yes, please! 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=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,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 06836C433E7 for ; Sat, 10 Oct 2020 04:42:53 +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 38CA620709 for ; Sat, 10 Oct 2020 04:42:52 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="JDkruvQZ" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 38CA620709 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]:45414 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kR6iZ-0002Vg-5s for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Sat, 10 Oct 2020 00:42:51 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:45758) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kR6hn-00026s-Oa for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 10 Oct 2020 00:42:03 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([216.205.24.124]:40447) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kR6hk-0000OE-DW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 10 Oct 2020 00:42:02 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1602304918; 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=vs68KN6xy3tJ50oUSJLZxJXUkrP9J+jFxUF8lhzeWpw=; b=JDkruvQZZexqNKM494CpbV7SEeipjtaVL14EVuh4v57XDOWtmjPe9gjCPcQ8On+udUFOnL gNBmh1qcEN03gWX8vpDjOpmJUn5/duzQZEH2R3uJvYrDWAr1LdfHmF59Ds/rpcjSZhTrV6 t0hGicmM6em3fyLKEoUgWS66FYe5Mm4= 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-225-4E_qwnJ1OKyYLgLWbobiBA-1; Sat, 10 Oct 2020 00:41:54 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 4E_qwnJ1OKyYLgLWbobiBA-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 3504EEDBFC; Sat, 10 Oct 2020 04:41:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from blackfin.pond.sub.org (ovpn-112-182.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.112.182]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D58655779; Sat, 10 Oct 2020 04:41:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: by blackfin.pond.sub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9E36011329AE; Sat, 10 Oct 2020 06:41:48 +0200 (CEST) From: Markus Armbruster To: Eduardo Habkost Subject: Re: KVM call for agenda for 2020-10-06 References: <874kndm1t3.fsf@secure.mitica> <20201005144615.GE5029@stefanha-x1.localdomain> <8fce8f99-56bd-6a87-9789-325d6ffff54d@redhat.com> <20201008080345.GB4672@linux.fritz.box> <20201009164548.GC7303@habkost.net> Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2020 06:41:48 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20201009164548.GC7303@habkost.net> (Eduardo Habkost's message of "Fri, 9 Oct 2020 12:45:48 -0400") Message-ID: <87sgamae0j.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.15 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.205.24.124; envelope-from=armbru@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/10/09 21:43:12 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 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_NONE=-0.0001, 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: Kevin Wolf , Daniel Berrange , kvm-devel , Stefan Hajnoczi , qemu-devel , Paolo Bonzini , =?utf-8?Q?Marc-Andr=C3=A9?= Lureau , John Snow Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" Eduardo Habkost writes: > On Thu, Oct 08, 2020 at 10:03:45AM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote: >> Am 07.10.2020 um 19:50 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben: >> > On 06/10/20 20:21, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: >> > > * Does command-line order matter? >> > > * Two options: allow any order OR left-to-right ordering >> > > * Andrea Bolognani: Most users expect left-to-right ordering, >> > > why allow any order? >> > > * Eduardo Habkost: Can we enforce left-to-right ordering or do >> > > we need to follow the deprecation process? >> > > * Daniel Berrange: Solve compability by introducing new >> > > binaries without the burden of backwards compability >> > >> > I think "new binaries" shouldn't even have a command line; all >> > configuration should happen through QMP commands. Those are naturally >> > time-ordered, which is equivalent to left-to-right, and therefore the >> > question is sidestepped. Perhaps even having a command line in >> > qemu-storage-daemon was a mistake. >> > >> > For "old binaries" we are not adding too many options, so apart from the >> > nasty distinction between early and late objects we're at least not >> > making it worse. >> > >> > The big question to me is whether the configuration should be >> > QAPI-based, that is based on QAPI structs, or QMP-based. If the latter, >> > "object-add" (and to a lesser extent "device-add") are fine mechanisms >> > for configuration. There is still need for better QOM introspection, >> > but it would be much simpler than doing QOM object creation via QAPI >> > struct, if at all possible. >> >> I would strongly vote for QAPI-based. It doesn't have to be fully based >> on QAPI structs internally, but the defining property for me is that the >> external interface is described in the QAPI schema (which implies using >> QAPI structs for the external facing code). >> >> Not only is it a PITA to work with things like "gen": false or "props": >> "any", but having two systems to configure things side by side is also >> highly inconsistent. >> >> I have recently discussed object-add with Markus, or to be more precise, >> a QAPIfied --object in qsd wrapping it. This doesn't work well without >> having a schema. I believe the right thing to do there is build a QAPI >> schema describing the existing QOM properties in a first step (which >> already gives you all of the advantages of QAPI like introspection), and >> then in a second step generate the respective QOM code for initialising >> the properties from the schema instead of duplicating it. >> >> This can get challenging with dynamic properties, but as far as I can >> see, user creatable objects only have class properties or object >> properties created right in .instance_init (which should be equivalent). > > I've just submitted a series to ensure 100% of > TYPE_USER_CREATABLE types have only class properties: > > https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/20201009160122.1662082-1-ehabkost@redhat.com Lovely idea! Additional benefit: QOM introspection becomes more useful. >> As the number of user creatable objects isn't too large, this shouldn't >> be too hard. I'm less sure about device-add, though in theory the same >> approch would probably result in the best interface. > > Doing the same for all user creatable device types would be nice > too. We can use the property locking mechanism from the series above > to find out how bad the situation is. Yes, please!