Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] qapi: Add a 'coroutine' flag for commands

[Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>]

Am 17.01.2020 um 08:57 hat Markus Armbruster geschrieben:
> Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> > Am 16.01.2020 um 14:00 hat Markus Armbruster geschrieben:
> >> Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com> writes:
> >> > I have no idea if we will eventually get a case where the command wants
> >> > to behave different between the two modes and actually has use for a
> >> > coroutine. I hope not.
> >> >
> >> > But using two bools rather than a single enum keeps the code simple and
> >> > leaves us all options open if it turns out that we do have a use case.
> >> 
> >> I can buy the argument "the two are conceptually orthogonal, although we
> >> don't haven't found a use for one of the four cases".
> >> 
> >> Let's review the four combinations of the two flags once more:
> >> 
> >> * allow-oob: false, coroutine: false
> >> 
> >>   Handler runs in main loop, outside coroutine context.  Okay.
> >> 
> >> * allow-oob: false, coroutine: true
> >> 
> >>   Handler runs in main loop, in coroutine context.  Okay.
> >> 
> >> * allow-oob: true, coroutine: false
> >> 
> >>   Handler may run in main loop or in iothread, outside coroutine
> >>   context.  Okay.
> >> 
> >> * allow-oob: true, coroutine: true
> >> 
> >>   Handler may run (in main loop, in coroutine context) or (in iothread,
> >>   outside coroutine context).  This "in coroutine context only with
> >>   execute, not with exec-oob" behavior is a bit surprising.
> >> 
> >>   We could document it, noting that it may change to always run in
> >>   coroutine context.  Or we simply reject this case as "not
> >>   implemented".  Since we have no uses, I'm leaning towards reject.  One
> >>   fewer case to test then.
> >
> > What would be the right mode of rejecting it?
> >
> > I assume we should catch it somewhere in the QAPI generator (where?) and
> 
> check_flags() in expr.py?

Looks like the right place, thanks.

> > then just assert in the C code that both flags aren't set at the same
> > time?
> 
> I think you already do, in do_qmp_dispatch():
> 
>     assert(!(oob && qemu_in_coroutine()));
> 
> Not sure that's the best spot.  Let's see when I review PATCH 3.

This asserts that exec-oob handlers aren't executed in coroutine
context. It doesn't assert that the handler doesn't have QCO_COROUTINE
and QCO_ALLOW_OOB set at the same time.

> >> >> > @@ -194,8 +195,9 @@ out:
> >> >> >      return ret
> >> >> >  
> >> >> >  
> >> >> > -def gen_register_command(name, success_response, allow_oob, allow_preconfig):
> >> >> > -    options = []
> >> >> > +def gen_register_command(name: str, success_response: bool, allow_oob: bool,
> >> >> > +                         allow_preconfig: bool, coroutine: bool) -> str:
> >> >> > +    options = [] # type: List[str]
> >> 
> >> One more: this is a PEP 484 type hint.  With Python 3, we can use PEP
> >> 526 instead:
> >> 
> >>           options: List[str] = []
> >> 
> >> I think we should.
> >
> > This requires Python 3.6, unfortunately. The minimum requirement for
> > building QEMU is 3.5.
> 
> *Sigh*

One of the reasons why I would have preferred 3.6 as the minimum, but
our policy says that Debian oldstabe is still relevant for another two
years. *shrug*

Kevin