Re: [PATCH 2/8] qapi/qom: Introduce smp-cache object

[Zhao Liu <zhao1.liu@intel.com>]

Hi Daniel,

On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 10:03:02PM +0800, Zhao Liu wrote:
> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 22:03:02 +0800
> From: Zhao Liu <zhao1.liu@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] qapi/qom: Introduce smp-cache object
> 
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 01:47:16PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrang? wrote:
> > Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 13:47:16 +0100
> > From: "Daniel P. Berrang?" <berrange@redhat.com>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] qapi/qom: Introduce smp-cache object
> > 
> > On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 01:35:17PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> > > Zhao Liu <zhao1.liu@intel.com> writes:
> > > 
> > > > Hi Markus,
> > > >> SmpCachesProperties and SmpCacheProperties would put the singular
> > > >> vs. plural where it belongs.  Sounds a bit awkward to me, though.
> > > >> Naming is hard.
> > > >
> > > > For SmpCachesProperties, it's easy to overlook the first "s".
> > > >
> > > >> Other ideas, anybody?
> > > >
> > > > Maybe SmpCacheOptions or SmpCachesPropertyWrapper?
> > > 
> > > I wonder why we have a single QOM object to configure all caches, and
> > > not one QOM object per cache.
> > 
> > Previous versions of this series were augmenting the existing
> > -smp command line.
> 
> Ah, yes, since -smp, as a sugar option of -machine, doesn't support
> JSON. In -smp, we need to use keyval's style to configure as:
> 
> -smp caches.0.name=l1i,caches.0.topo=core
> 
> I think JSON is the more elegant way to go, so I chose -object.

I may have to retract this assertion considering more issues, I could
fall back to -smp and support it in keyval format, I think it's also ok
for me if you also like keyval format, sorry for my repetition, we can
discuss this in this thread:

https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/20240704031603.1744546-1-zhao1.liu@intel.com/T/#m8adba8ba14ebac0c9935fbf45983cc71e53ccf45

Thanks,
Zhao