From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 884941EA7FD for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2025 14:13:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738851183; cv=none; b=QrUGeTBXsWxXL5Rol+bM6rtcy3xmsRTOaqmdQOxPBukxUJJjNok/zICfUk9zNgTuDl2UNHVRupL7clm4d2OBgj2U7MtFHGInmMP2GkR6lb1jsZipGOuCUuniDOOeDNBWwD/q63wBNpYT1Ft9Qy7jXybaaRq2vQ2UhAV4De9jKQ0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738851183; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ZMq35FrhEk5mDeRr7RJiv16EUshbu3LSB2bSHyn92zU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=n5DpncQc8m7Rjd7KqFGsEyHO+BJeb3+NFRi89XWljeDNHwzXxG7g75OHfAfRWtdYAE7NxlfoZGCkIU8qV05RAc1AbG8MpSD7V0jOo5+oit/8Hu9Xd6r/z6TyteJVD7IGNOoZn9CdmW9Br7TZvG/KMONXQTvk7zhwEBi+XteI89M= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=GNqtcr11; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="GNqtcr11" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1738851182; x=1770387182; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=ZMq35FrhEk5mDeRr7RJiv16EUshbu3LSB2bSHyn92zU=; b=GNqtcr11CfJg7By4oLSYdkeYcHVT4SSUzd3BPD2VvjT3oQJk2iREPpIO OyvLmpf20lS/Wq01SkVYYhDuxdvAImYL/TL90Q7JUJiHK+3AN3IfaHKGJ D0gcnZysrDL7Uz4jf2o0w5aio/tYYfkVXj/dMSCZPNB+E35wEEyqi1Qws dSg6s1LZ0Kq7myn/wX2k4UBwsdhzBI5XrDmSkfwZD0sE9tuf7KVeLPUcp xiOZUSvmHfVvDWAkar/3NczBBby9E3BzSCWbU6mTiVc/eGFa0XAVdAoN6 1hD2y2fDm0hS3KrUFIWXNaoGX81KL2X4tR/MpeEC65yGi3WTQX3S6VZqo Q==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: LZ9nkyIPQO+dtgB47RUDUA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: yizg1aC/T/a7S3EZJiXS6A== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11336"; a="38686408" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.13,264,1732608000"; d="scan'208";a="38686408" Received: from orviesa003.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.143]) by fmvoesa112.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Feb 2025 06:13:01 -0800 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: dGmgrJBGSfyPuxx/edfiyg== X-CSE-MsgGUID: 4Ek+cwODRZqo7tx2bSyBtw== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.11,199,1725346800"; d="scan'208";a="116180151" Received: from liuzhao-optiplex-7080.sh.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.239.160.39]) by orviesa003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 06 Feb 2025 06:12:57 -0800 Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2025 22:32:25 +0800 From: Zhao Liu To: Markus Armbruster Cc: Paolo Bonzini , Eric Blake , Michael Roth , Daniel P =?iso-8859-1?Q?=2E_Berrang=E9?= , Eduardo Habkost , Marcelo Tosatti , Shaoqin Huang , Eric Auger , Peter Maydell , Laurent Vivier , Thomas Huth , Sebastian Ott , Gavin Shan , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, qemu-arm@nongnu.org, Dapeng Mi , Yi Lai Subject: Re: [RFC v2 1/5] qapi/qom: Introduce kvm-pmu-filter object Message-ID: References: <20250122090517.294083-1-zhao1.liu@intel.com> <20250122090517.294083-2-zhao1.liu@intel.com> <871pwc3dyw.fsf@pond.sub.org> <87h657p8z0.fsf@pond.sub.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87h657p8z0.fsf@pond.sub.org> > Let's ignore how to place it for now, and focus on where we would *like* > to place it. > > Is it related to anything other than ObjectType / ObjectOptions in the > QMP reference manual? Yes! > I guess qapi/kvm.json is for KVM-specific stuff in general, not just the > KVM PMU filter. Should we have a section for accelerator-specific > stuff, with subsections for the various accelerators? > > [...] If we consider the accelerator from a top-down perspective, I understand that we need to add accelerator.json, kvm.json, and kvm-pmu-filter.json. The first two files are just to include subsections without any additional content. Is this overkill? Could we just add a single kvm-pmu-filter.json (I also considered this name, thinking that kvm might need to add more things in the future)? Of course, I lack experience with the file organization here. If you think the three-level sections (accelerator.json, kvm.json, and kvm-pmu-filter.json) is necessary, I am happy to try this way. :-)