From: "Andreas Färber" <afaerber@suse.de>
To: Programmingkid <programmingkidx@gmail.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>,
Gonglei <arei.gonglei@huawei.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3] monitor: allow object_del & device_del to accept QOM paths
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 18:00:52 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <55E5CBB4.6060109@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <649D6DBF-36CB-4292-AAE6-C8A7454B55D0@gmail.com>
Am 01.09.2015 um 17:58 schrieb Programmingkid:
> On Sep 1, 2015, at 11:55 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> On 09/01/2015 07:23 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>>>> +Remove device @var{id}. @var{id} may be a short ID
>>>>> +or a QOM object path.
>>>>
>>>> Have you considered using two alternative parameters, id and qom-path?
>>>> (qom_path was used elsewhere)
>>>
>>> I'm not fussed either way, but I thought it simpler to not try to change
>>> the accepted parameters of the existing commands. Looking, the only
>>> place I notice that uses a 'qom_path' is the return data in the CpuInfo
>>> struct.
>>>
>>> Does anyone have strong feelings either way about use of id for both vs
>>> qom-path or id ?
>>
>> Reusing 'id':
>> - Pros
>> - less complicated interface (don't have to check for mutual exclusion)
>> - Cons
>> - not introspectible (can't tell by introspection alone whether id can
>> take a QOM path)
>> - confusing name (but not the first time we've had that issue)
>>
>> Adding 'qom-path':
>> - Pros
>> - introspectible
>> - JSON expresses everything (we don't have to parse the first
>> character of the string to know which style was meant, as the choice of
>> key already decided it)
>> - Cons
>> - Have to implement mutual exclusion ourselves (can't take 'id' and
>> 'qom-path' at the same time, and at least one must be specified), unless
>> we invent a new way for qapi to express mutual exclusion (there are
>> other existing commands that would benefit from such an extension)
>
> Don't forget having a really long command to type up just to find out
> what qom path you need.
>
> Also the qom path itself is very long. A simple ID is much easier to type out.
That's besides the point: IDs can already be specified without this
patch. This patch is shoehorning QOM paths into an existing ID argument.
Regards,
Andreas
--
SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton; HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-09-01 16:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-09-01 9:50 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3] monitor: allow object_del & device_del to accept QOM paths Daniel P. Berrange
2015-09-01 13:13 ` Gonglei
2015-09-01 13:17 ` Andreas Färber
2015-09-01 13:23 ` Daniel P. Berrange
2015-09-01 15:55 ` Eric Blake
2015-09-01 15:58 ` Programmingkid
2015-09-01 16:00 ` Andreas Färber [this message]
2015-09-01 15:57 ` Eric Blake
2015-09-02 9:40 ` Paolo Bonzini
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=55E5CBB4.6060109@suse.de \
--to=afaerber@suse.de \
--cc=arei.gonglei@huawei.com \
--cc=armbru@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=programmingkidx@gmail.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).