From: Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com>
To: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>, qemu-block@nongnu.org
Cc: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2] qapi: Allow blockdev-add for NBD
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 18:00:49 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56B23241.9060301@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56B22F6E.5090308@redhat.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4359 bytes --]
On 03.02.2016 17:48, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 02/03/2016 09:33 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
>> We have to introduce a new object (BlockdevOptionsNbd) for several
>> reasons:
>> - Neither of InetSocketAddress nor UnixSocketAddress alone is
>> sufficient, because both are supported
>> - We cannot use SocketAddress because NBD does not support an fd,
>> and because it is not a flat union which BlockdevOptionsNbd is
>
> Can we do it anyways, and just error out/document that fd is unsupported?
Would be possible, if InetSocketAddress's port was optional and if it
was a flat union.
(Note that the port not being optional is not a real issue; it just
means the user cannot omit it when using blockdev-add, but that's not so
bad.)
>> - We cannot use a flat union of InetSocketAddress and
>> UnixSocketAddress because we would need some kind of discriminator
>> which we do not have; we could inline the UnixSocketAddress as a
>> string and then make it an 'alternate' type instead of a union, but
>> this will not work either, because:
>> - InetSocketAddress itself is not suitable for NBD because the port is
>> not optional (which it is for NBD) and because it offers more options
>> (like choosing between ipv4 and ipv6) which NBD does not support.
>
> That, and qapi doesn't (yet) support the use of a flat union as the
> branch of yet another flat union.
>
> I'd like to reach the point where we can have a flat union with an
> implicit discriminator (if the discriminator was not present, the
> require a default branch), but don't think it should hold up this patch.
> I also think that future qapi improvements may make it possible to
> retrofit this struct to make the mutual exclusion between host/file more
> obvious during introspection, rather than just by documentation.
The problem here is that we really just want to merge and flatten
{Inet,Unix}SocketAddress into a single union. The discriminator
basically is of which object all the non-optional fields are present.
>> Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> qapi/block-core.json | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>
>> ##
>> +# @BlockdevOptionsNbd
>> +#
>> +# Driver specific block device options for NBD. Either of @host or @path must be
>> +# specified, but not both.
>> +#
>> +# @host: #optional Connects to the given host using TCP.
>> +#
>> +# @port: #optional Specifies the TCP port to connect to; may be used only in
>> +# conjunction with @host. Defaults to 10809.
>> +#
>> +# @path: #optional Connects to the given Unix socket path.
>> +#
>> +# @export: #optional Name of the NBD export to open.
>
> Maybe mention that the default is no export name.
Can do (and will do, because you asked for it), but I thought that "Not
specifying an export name means no export name" to be self-evident. :-)
>> +#
>> +# Since: 2.6
>> +##
>> +{ 'struct': 'BlockdevOptionsNbd',
>> + 'data': { '*host': 'str',
>> + '*port': 'str',
>> + '*path': 'str',
>> + '*export': 'str' } }
>
> I'm not entirely convinced this is the final representation we want, but
> I can't immediately propose anything nicer.
Ideally, this would just be a SocketAddress. Unfortunately, this is not
possible because SocketAddress is not flat but this has to be.
The representation I guess I'd want under the circumstances would be a
flat union of InetSocketAddress and UnixSocketAddress with a semantic
discriminator as described above (check which non-optional fields are
present).
However, in order for this to work, the code generator would need to
support flat unions with such a semantic discriminator[1], and also the
@port parameter in InetSocketAddress should be optional (which might
require non-trivial changes to existing code that expects an
InetSocketAddress). However, as written above, the port not being
optional would not be too bad.
But in any case, the on-wire interface is stable and defined by
block/nbd.c already, so I believe we can enrich the definition later on.
Maybe we should define @port to be non-optional if @host is specified,
though.
Max
[1] And I don't believe I feel quite comfortable with extending the code
generator...
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-02-03 17:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-03 16:33 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/2] qapi: Allow blockdev-add for NBD Max Reitz
2016-02-03 16:33 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/2] block/nbd: Reject port parameter without host Max Reitz
2016-02-03 16:38 ` Eric Blake
2016-02-03 16:39 ` Max Reitz
2016-02-03 16:33 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2] qapi: Allow blockdev-add for NBD Max Reitz
2016-02-03 16:48 ` Eric Blake
2016-02-03 17:00 ` Max Reitz [this message]
2016-02-04 11:58 ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-02-03 17:06 ` Daniel P. Berrange
2016-02-03 17:16 ` Max Reitz
2016-02-04 12:01 ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-02-04 13:08 ` Kevin Wolf
2016-02-04 13:19 ` Daniel P. Berrange
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=56B23241.9060301@redhat.com \
--to=mreitz@redhat.com \
--cc=armbru@redhat.com \
--cc=eblake@redhat.com \
--cc=kwolf@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-block@nongnu.org \
--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).