From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51454) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eKrDC-0007Hi-Jq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 01 Dec 2017 14:43:03 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eKrD7-0003tg-PO for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 01 Dec 2017 14:43:02 -0500 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:38848) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eKrD7-0003tG-FI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 01 Dec 2017 14:42:57 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098393.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id vB1EeeJw039693 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2017 09:41:27 -0500 Received: from e06smtp12.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp12.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.108]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2ek7semn7h-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 01 Dec 2017 09:41:27 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp12.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 1 Dec 2017 14:41:24 -0000 Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.58]) by b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id vB1EfMjN26804266 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2017 14:41:22 GMT Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id D26E24C046 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2017 14:36:17 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id A55D44C04A for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2017 14:36:17 +0000 (GMT) Received: from oc3836556865.ibm.com (unknown [9.152.224.205]) by d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2017 14:36:17 +0000 (GMT) From: Halil Pasic References: <20171128134648.21530-1-cohuck@redhat.com> <6513d1c5-032e-b9d0-3dab-f2d0bd337ae2@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20171128152718.229a20fe.cohuck@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 15:41:21 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <389e2efe-cbc5-8a78-e009-cd330d4ede6a@linux.vnet.ibm.com> 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: qemu-devel@nongnu.org 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. > > 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 > [..]