From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52249) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eLuuB-0003gx-Ai for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 04 Dec 2017 12:51:48 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eLuu7-0002iG-BU for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 04 Dec 2017 12:51:47 -0500 Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 18:51:36 +0100 From: Cornelia Huck Message-ID: <20171204185136.7f42e2e7.cohuck@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20171128134648.21530-1-cohuck@redhat.com> <20171128134648.21530-3-cohuck@redhat.com> <7c5e59c3-fdee-604d-3ade-841fbdb045e3@de.ibm.com> <20171204174056.182ec0f0.cohuck@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [qemu-s390x] [PATCH RFC 2/2] s390x: attach autogenerated nics List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Halil Pasic Cc: Christian Borntraeger , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-s390x@nongnu.org, pmorel@linux.vnet.ibm.com On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 18:33:24 +0100 Halil Pasic wrote: > On 12/04/2017 05:40 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 12:17:06 +0100 > > Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > > >> On 11/28/2017 02:46 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > >>> The autogenerated nics should be treated as any other device; use > >>> qdev_set_id() to have them show up under peripheral-anon. > >>> > >> I think this is fine, but then I ask myself how x86 does this. So I tried to > >> find out how the pc-q35 machine does this but I somehow failed to understand > >> how they do it. Do you have any clue? > > > > It seems they don't. If you start up a machine with only autogenerated > > devices, you won't find anything under peripheral{-anon}, but several > > devices under unattached. > > > > So, maybe we should change this for everything? Or just leave it alone? > > > > (The css-bridge change is a different thing IMO, it clearly should be > > attached to the machine.) > > > > IMHO (try to) change everywhere. The devices are attached to the machine, > and them showing up as unattached is misleading. IMHO we still to have the > 'is it API or not' question/problem so we need to be careful. > > Another think I was wondering about is ids: there are QMP commands which > designate devices by path and there are commands which designate by id > (and we even have either-or via the same parameter in case of device_del). > Since the paths do not seem to be directly assigned/controlled by the user > ([1]] but id's are I would argue that ids are easier to understand and > use. Would generating an id for each auto-generated device be a good idea? > > I'm trying to figure out, how the QAPI is supposed to be used, and feel like. > So take my comments with a grain of salt. > > [1] One can, but does not have to specify the bus. Libvirt does not seem > to for virtio-ccw devices. And if one were to, the other patch in the > series could break that code. I'm inclined to rather just drop this patch and put it into the backlog for idle times, before this escalates into a wholesale rewrite of core infrastructure.