From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40418) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Wu0Fb-0001Is-3W for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2014 10:08:46 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Wu0FN-000484-LR for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2014 10:08:39 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:5556) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Wu0FN-00047n-DV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2014 10:08:25 -0400 Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2014 16:08:15 +0200 From: Igor Mammedov Message-ID: <20140609160815.2a6f76a8@thinkpad> In-Reply-To: <5395B968.6020300@redhat.com> References: <66e17e32ccb10ca0ae262103fcf170b84511c3f8.1402299637.git.hutao@cn.fujitsu.com> <20140609143622.44fa7006@thinkpad> <5395AF7F.7000403@redhat.com> <20140609153257.49d4460f@thinkpad> <5395B968.6020300@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 28/29] qmp: add query-memdev List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Hu Tao , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Eduardo Habkost , Yasunori Goto On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 15:40:56 +0200 Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 09/06/2014 15:32, Igor Mammedov ha scritto: > >>>>> > >> > +{ 'command': 'query-memdev', 'returns': ['Memdev'] } > >>> > > Could we make it union, that returns MemdevRam + MemdevFile > >>> > > > >>> > > MemdevFile will have additional file-only specific properties. > >>> > > > >> > > >> > Which are the file-only properties (in the current definition of Memdev)? > > in current none, but for file backend exposing 'path' property might be useful > > alternatively instead of union we could add 'type' and optional 'path' fields > > to Memdev > > > > Yes, I agree. I think the latest additions to QAPI actually let you do > that with a QAPI union while keeping backwards-compatible output for > other fields. Ok to do this later? It should be acceptable for soft > freeze. sure. Actually, all my comments could be addressed as follow up patches before freeze, there is no point in respining huge series for more or less cosmetic changes. > > Paolo -- Regards, Igor