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=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=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 8E566C2D0DB for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 12:26:15 +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 594582467A for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 12:26:15 +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="cvNNL5oA" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 594582467A 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]:40996 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iuF5K-0001gc-HU for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 07:26:14 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:44525) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iuF4D-0000sp-Qk for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 07:25:07 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iuF4C-000882-GK for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 07:25:05 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com ([205.139.110.61]:33219 helo=us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iuF4C-00087P-CR for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 07:25:04 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1579695904; 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: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=HJ8VTUTsR0A3bUokoEfG5TZFK+goq8/I1dZOnP0Zl+U=; b=cvNNL5oAplTbKMcyRLvpG/MX+aJDVPY6wlvZhBOKbPxwyt51CTpMcobIUZr9NcqCvxEMXO i+NwZBXELKlG7L9/UluF0/IOZSzpTrrGH97QfqdLeYEIRcfUEBV3XVGcnZtFKcRixLS4bJ KcgB51bDktUJTz73iqrCJd+DG2PLZLU= 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-384-FTjmu_cbNJiYe8SFKJZ2qQ-1; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 07:25:00 -0500 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E13E08010ED; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 12:24:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from blackfin.pond.sub.org (ovpn-116-131.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.131]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89FF060FA2; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 12:24:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: by blackfin.pond.sub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1F3901138600; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:24:52 +0100 (CET) From: Markus Armbruster To: Alex =?utf-8?Q?Benn=C3=A9e?= Subject: Re: Integrating QOM into QAPI References: <87d0bmchq0.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <1B253197-5592-472A-AA26-E0614A13C91A@redhat.com> <87o8v52hz9.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <8CF8359B-1E52-4F7A-944E-C1C14FEC4F92@redhat.com> <87r200zzje.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <20200120100849.GB345995@stefanha-x1.localdomain> <871rrtmkko.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <20200121113224.GD630615@stefanha-x1.localdomain> <87wo9lc4oe.fsf_-_@dusky.pond.sub.org> <20200121143658.GB597037@redhat.com> <871rrs97ld.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <87y2tzzrwo.fsf@linaro.org> Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:24:52 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87y2tzzrwo.fsf@linaro.org> ("Alex =?utf-8?Q?Benn=C3=A9e=22's?= message of "Wed, 22 Jan 2020 10:50:31 +0000") Message-ID: <87wo9ju19n.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.12 X-MC-Unique: FTjmu_cbNJiYe8SFKJZ2qQ-1 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 205.139.110.61 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 , Peter Maydell , "Daniel P. =?utf-8?Q?Berrang=C3=A9?=" , "Denis V. Lunev" , Stefan Hajnoczi , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, =?utf-8?Q?Marc-Andr=C3=A9?= Lureau , Christophe de Dinechin , Paolo Bonzini , John Snow , Dominik Csapak Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" Alex Benn=C3=A9e writes: > Marc-Andr=C3=A9 Lureau writes: >> Actually, we are not that far off from being able to use GObject >> altogether (I hacked something like that to play with), but I >> disgress... > > As a mostly hands off observer who mainly c&p's QOM code when he has to > I have to ask is this a long term plan? > > I've always found having our own hand rolled object system a little > incongruous given we lean heavily on the rest of glib. I vaguely remember claims that GObject falls short of our needs. Sadly, I don't remember the details. This is why major features should come with a design document. https://wiki.qemu.org/Features/QOM ain't: it does not mention GObject. I'm afraid that page has fallen too far behind the code to be useful to anyone not familiar with the code. >> So introducing GObject-like macros? sure! >> >> There are plenty of refactoring to do. The problem when touching the >> whole code-base, imho, is review time. It may take a couple of >> hours/days to come up with a cocci/spatch, and make various patches >> here and there. But it takes often weeks and a lot of constant push to >> various folks to get all the reviews (as seens by the qdev prop-ptr >> series earlier for example). How can we better address whole code-base >> changes? > > The problem with review time - especially for QOM - is having domain > knowledge to understand what is happening. > > Are we happy that the existing qdev/qmp tests sufficiently exercise > QEMU's object model? Perhaps with a little extra tweaking of the tests > we could dump the object hierarchy and then compare it to the hierarchy > presented after modification. That might make it easier to have > confidence that these large scale but mostly mechanical changes don't > change anything externally visible? Comparing the composition tree complete with properties and property values before and after feels like a useful regression test. Any takers?