From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41611) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZgWcV-00008p-3x for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 07:29:23 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZgWcR-0004bx-U4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 07:29:23 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:50500) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZgWcR-0004bg-Ob for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 07:29:19 -0400 References: <1442872682-6523-1-git-send-email-eblake@redhat.com> <1442872682-6523-46-git-send-email-eblake@redhat.com> <5602C7DE.10701@redhat.com> <5602D545.3050405@redhat.com> <56057AF8.2010008@redhat.com> <87mvw6ki05.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <5609248C.2050407@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 13:29:16 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87mvw6ki05.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 45/46] net: Complete qapi-fication of netdev_add List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Markus Armbruster Cc: ehabkost@redhat.com, Jason Wang , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, DirtY.iCE.hu@gmail.com, marcandre.lureau@redhat.com On 28/09/2015 11:31, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> However, while changing the command to >> > >> > { 'command': 'netdev_add', 'data': 'Netdev', 'box': true, 'gen': false } >> > >> > for better introspection, you should keep 'gen':'false' and the manual >> > implementation based on qemu_opts_from_qdict, otherwise you break >> > backwards-compatibility. > Non sequitur :) > > We need to stay sufficiently backwards compatible somehow. 'gen' false > is one possible solution. Liberal use of alternate types could be > another. A special input visitor mode could be a third. Agreed; my suggestion is the minimal change on top of this patch, actually undoing part of it. Any other approach should be done separately. Paolo > Since my review cursor is >30 patches behind this one, I don't have an > opinion, yet.