From: "Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>
To: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Cc: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>,
kwolf@redhat.com, el13635@mail.ntua.gr, qemu-devel@nongnu.org,
f4bug@amsat.org, pbonzini@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] vl: Partial support for non-scalar properties with -object
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 17:29:19 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180416162919.GC12819@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87lgmme6ji.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org>
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 01:24:17PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 12:47:44PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> >> On 08/11/2017 11:05 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> > We've wanted -object to support non-scalar properties for a while.
> >> > Dan Berrange tried in "[PATCH v4 00/10]Provide a QOM-based
> >> > authorization API". Review led to the conclusion that we need to
> >> > replace rather than add to QemuOpts. Initial work towards that goal
> >> > has been merged to provide -blockdev (commit 8746709), but there's
> >> > substantial work left, mostly due to an bewildering array of
> >> > compatibility problems.
> >> >
> >> > Even if a full solution is still out of reach, we can have a partial
> >> > solution now: accept -object argument in JSON syntax. This should
> >> > unblock development work that needs non-scalar properties with
> >> > -object.
> >> >
> >> > The implementation is similar to -blockdev, except we use the new
> >> > infrastructure only for the new JSON case, and stick to QemuOpts for
> >> > the existing KEY=VALUE,... case, to sidestep compatibility problems.
> >> >
> >> > If we did this for more options, we'd have to factor out common code.
> >> > But for one option, this will do.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
> >> > ---
> >> > qapi-schema.json | 14 +++++++++++---
> >> > vl.c | 51 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> > 2 files changed, 62 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >> > static void object_create(bool (*type_predicate)(const char *))
> >> > {
> >> > + ObjectOptionsQueueEntry *e, *next;
> >> > +
> >> > + QSIMPLEQ_FOREACH_SAFE(e, &oo_queue, entry, next) {
> >> > + if (!type_predicate(e->oo->qom_type)) {
> >> > + continue;
> >> > + }
> >> > +
> >> > + loc_push_restore(&e->loc);
> >> > + qmp_object_add(e->oo->qom_type, e->oo->id,
> >> > + e->oo->has_props, e->oo->props, &error_fatal);
> >> > + loc_pop(&e->loc);
> >> > +
> >> > + QSIMPLEQ_REMOVE(&oo_queue, e, ObjectOptionsQueueEntry, entry);
> >> > + qapi_free_ObjectOptions(e->oo);
> >> > + }
> >> > +
> >> > if (qemu_opts_foreach(qemu_find_opts("object"),
> >>
> >> This handles all JSON forms prior to any QemuOpt forms (within the two
> >> priority levels), such that a command line using:
> >>
> >> -object type,id=1,oldstyle... -object '{'id':2, 'type':..., newstyle...}'
> >>
> >> processes the arguments in a different order than
> >>
> >> -object type,id=1,oldstyle... -object type,id=2,oldstyle
> >>
> >> But I don't see that as too bad (ideally, someone using the {} JSON
> >> style will use it consistently).
> >
> > I don't really like such a constraint - the ordering of object
> > creation is already complex with some objets created at a different
> > point in startup to other objects. Adding yet another constraint
> > feels like it is painting ourselves into a corner wrt future changes.
>
> The full solution will evaluate -object left to right.
>
> This partial solution doesn't, but it's not meant for use in anger, just
> for unblocking development work. Can add scary warnings to deter
> premature use.
>
> > In particular I think it is quite possible to use the dotted
> > form primarily, and only use JSON for the immediate scenario
> > where non-JSON form won't work - I expect that's how we would
> > use it in libvirt - I don't see libvirt changing 100% to JSON
> > based objects
>
> You need the JSON form anyway for QMP, and for the cases where dotted
> keys break down. Doing both just for the command line requires code to
> do dotted keys (which may already exist), and code to decide whether it
> can be used (which probably doesn't exist, yet).
>
> Wouldn't this add complexity? For what benefit exactly?
Surprisingly, it appears we do actually have code that generates the
JSON syntax for (probably) all uses of -object today. In fact we are
actually generating JSON and then converting it to dotted syntax in
most cases, which I didn't realize when writing the above.
We'll have to keep support for dotted syntax around a while for old
QEMU versions, but it looks like we could reasonably easily switch
to JSON syntax for all -object usage at the same time.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-04-16 16:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-08-11 16:05 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/2] vl: Partial support for non-scalar properties with -object Markus Armbruster
2017-08-11 16:05 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/2] vl: Factor object_create() out of main() Markus Armbruster
2017-08-11 16:05 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] vl: Partial support for non-scalar properties with -object Markus Armbruster
2017-08-11 17:47 ` Eric Blake
2017-08-14 5:49 ` Markus Armbruster
2018-04-16 16:24 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2018-05-28 9:30 ` Markus Armbruster
2017-08-14 9:44 ` Daniel P. Berrange
2017-08-14 11:24 ` Markus Armbruster
2018-04-16 16:29 ` Daniel P. Berrangé [this message]
2018-05-28 9:14 ` Markus Armbruster
2018-04-16 16:17 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/2] " Daniel P. Berrangé
2018-05-28 9:31 ` Markus Armbruster
2018-06-08 17:11 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180416162919.GC12819@redhat.com \
--to=berrange@redhat.com \
--cc=armbru@redhat.com \
--cc=eblake@redhat.com \
--cc=el13635@mail.ntua.gr \
--cc=f4bug@amsat.org \
--cc=kwolf@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).