From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41172) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W1aGK-0006vi-By for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 06:28:34 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W1aGA-0004hx-86 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 06:28:28 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:19876) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W1aG9-0004hq-UU for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 06:28:18 -0500 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 12:28:10 +0100 From: Igor Mammedov Message-ID: <20140110122810.7d34b120@thinkpad> In-Reply-To: <52CD8BD7.8070706@redhat.com> References: <1389197382-25085-1-git-send-email-imammedo@redhat.com> <52CD7BBF.3030202@redhat.com> <20140108175159.029e5f9e@nial.usersys.redhat.com> <52CD8BD7.8070706@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 0/5] -object/object-add support custom location and 2nd stage initialization List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: stefanha@redhat.com, sw@weilnetz.de, mjt@tls.msk.ru, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, lcapitulino@redhat.com, blauwirbel@gmail.com, aliguori@amazon.com, afaerber@suse.de, rth@twiddle.net On Wed, 08 Jan 2014 18:33:11 +0100 Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 08/01/2014 17:51, Igor Mammedov ha scritto: > >> > > >> > Thanks Igor! I like very much patches 1-4 (though I'm thinking that we > >> > need some style conventions for interfaces). I think patch 5 adds more > >> > complexity than we need, but I'm open to discussion. > > I'm sorry that it took so long. > > The reason for separate interfaces is that realize interface is more generic > > and might be used outside of '-object'. While I don't see 'path' interface > > ever used outside of -object. > > Yeah, I think the two interfaces are a good idea. The question is > whether we want the second interface at all. I think it's fine to > delegate namespace conventions to management. with dropping it, backends for sure can work without it, they will be just placed directly under "/objects". For memdev backend it might be upto 256 objects, clattering "/objects" container. Stefan had the similar idea about grouping iothread objects inside "/backends/iothreads". > > Regarding the "overloading" of the realize name, I was against it in > previous discussion and I still am (I was in favor of something like > UserCreatable and naming the method "complete" or "construct"), but I > didn't want to sound too negative. :) issue with naming interface as CommandLine or UserCreatable is that, it could be used not only by CLI/user but also it could be used internally. For example see "[PATCH 3/5] virtio_rng: use object_realize interface instead of calling backend API", where default backend is created by frontend. how about naming it for what it is: object-2nd-stage-init or neutral object-complementary-interface that could be extended later with another methods (we could event squash path interface in it in the last case) > Paolo -- Regards, Igor