From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:46430) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QbWRR-0006an-FF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 07:26:54 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QbWRP-0006ZJ-GP for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 07:26:53 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:58071) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QbWRO-0006Z8-Uz for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 07:26:51 -0400 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p5SBQmkD019924 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 07:26:48 -0400 Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 16:56:46 +0530 From: Amit Shah Message-ID: <20110628112646.GB25491@amit-x200.redhat.com> References: <1305805037-17752-1-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com> <20110627095420.GG9369@amit-x200.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/4] A few cleanups of qdev users List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Markus Armbruster Cc: alevy@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kraxel@redhat.com On (Mon) 27 Jun 2011 [14:36:11], Markus Armbruster wrote: > Amit Shah writes: > > > On (Fri) 24 Jun 2011 [13:57:28], Markus Armbruster wrote: > >> Ping? > > > > There were a couple of things: > > > >> port 0, guest on, host off, throttle off > > > > guest on/off, host on/off doesn't convey much -- what's on/off? > > > > Also, 'throttle' could be 'thottled'? > > Discussion petered out with my message[*]: > > I chose on/off to stay consistent with how qdev shows bool > properties (print_bit() in qdev-properties.c). May be misguided. > Like you, I'm having difficulties coming up with a better version > that is still consise. > > But: should "info qtree" show such device state? It's about > configuration of the device tree, isn't it? Connection status is > useful to know, but it's not device configuration. Other > print_dev() methods may cross that line, too. For instance, > usb_bus_dev_print() prints attached, which looks suspicious (commit > 66a6593a). > > Should info qtree continue to show this information? If yes, care to > suggest a better format? Don't know. I'm fine with anything the qdev guys decide. I agree this isn't device state. Amit