From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35540) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eLmxN-0005lO-Vv for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 04 Dec 2017 04:22:37 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eLmxL-0006D7-C3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 04 Dec 2017 04:22:33 -0500 Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 10:22:20 +0100 From: Cornelia Huck Message-ID: <20171204102220.31fce015.cohuck@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <389e2efe-cbc5-8a78-e009-cd330d4ede6a@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20171128134648.21530-1-cohuck@redhat.com> <6513d1c5-032e-b9d0-3dab-f2d0bd337ae2@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20171128152718.229a20fe.cohuck@redhat.com> <389e2efe-cbc5-8a78-e009-cd330d4ede6a@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC 0/2] s390x: cut down on unattached devices List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Halil Pasic Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-s390x@nongnu.org, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, pmorel@linux.vnet.ibm.com On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 15:41:21 +0100 Halil Pasic wrote: > On 11/28/2017 04:21 PM, Halil Pasic wrote: > [..] > >>> Otherwise at first glance both patches seem sane. > >> > >> Can I count this as an ack, or do you plan to do more review? > >> > > > > Yes I was planning to give it another look. And I do already > > have questions. Isn't the QOM composition tree API? I mean > > let's assume the QMP commands working on this tree are not completely > > useless. How is client code (management software) supposed to work, > > assumed it can rely on paths of e.g. properties being stable. Just > > imagine we had this default-cssid property (for the sake of the > > argument, not like we want it) on the css bridge. > > Ping! I would like to get this clarified before proceeding with reviewing > this series. [It might be helpful to not drop cc:s.] I don't think we really want a static tree. As long as the devices are locateable, it should be fine. > > > > > Now if the composition tree is API then these can only be bug fixes > > (IMHO). > > > > There are also other oddities I've spotted. My idea was to put > > this composition tree discussion on hold until the vfio-ccw stuff > > is sorted out. I would certainly like to build a better understanding. > > > > Halil > > > > [..] > >