From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57199) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VCXpY-0002KX-Tp for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 12:33:59 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VCXpT-0003oG-4m for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 12:33:52 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:47065) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VCXpS-0003oB-T7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 12:33:47 -0400 Message-ID: <52163DF4.5050105@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 18:36:04 +0200 From: Laszlo Ersek MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1376960839-13033-1-git-send-email-gaowanlong@cn.fujitsu.com> <1376960839-13033-2-git-send-email-gaowanlong@cn.fujitsu.com> <52152A36.80705@redhat.com> <52156592.1000905@cn.fujitsu.com> <52157770.7030803@redhat.com> <5215829F.2090006@cn.fujitsu.com> <5215D001.4060000@redhat.com> <521638DB.9050700@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <521638DB.9050700@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH V8 01/11] NUMA: add NumaOptions, NumaNodeOptions and NumaMemOptions List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake Cc: aliguori@us.ibm.com, ehabkost@redhat.com, hutao@cn.fujitsu.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, lcapitulino@redhat.com, bsd@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, y-goto@jp.fujitsu.com, peter.huangpeng@huawei.com, afaerber@suse.de, gaowanlong@cn.fujitsu.com On 08/22/13 18:14, Eric Blake wrote: > On 08/22/2013 02:46 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >> Yes. This part of the schema is not for exposure over QMP, it just >> generates stuff for OptsVisitor, and it must remain compatible with the >> original, manual parsing of the option. >> >> This came up for V6: >> >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/225678/focus=225714 > > My fault for coming into the conversation late, but a note to that > effect in the commit log, and/or in the description of why this type is > listed in the qapi document, would be handy. I agree. We should probably tack a banner to each such structure in the qapi schema json. Thanks Laszlo