From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55996) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1df6HJ-0002P9-1a for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 08 Aug 2017 11:18:46 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1df6HH-0000ty-SG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 08 Aug 2017 11:18:41 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:43733) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1df6HH-0000tl-Lb for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 08 Aug 2017 11:18:39 -0400 From: Markus Armbruster References: <1499182263-19139-1-git-send-email-pradeep.jagadeesh@huawei.com> <1499182263-19139-3-git-send-email-pradeep.jagadeesh@huawei.com> <87bmoxcuvn.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <61626c42-9c47-14e5-24b7-e6086d042a6b@huawei.com> <87shh3fn7d.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <34e45421-0b22-15b4-deb7-980f26e5ca23@huawei.com> Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2017 17:18:36 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Alberto Garcia's message of "Tue, 08 Aug 2017 16:33:34 +0200") Message-ID: <87wp6e6qb7.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v7 2/6] qmp: Create IOThrottle structure List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Alberto Garcia Cc: Pradeep Jagadeesh , Kevin Wolf , jani kokkonen , greg kurz , Pradeep Jagadeesh , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Alberto Garcia writes: > On Tue 08 Aug 2017 02:30:43 PM CEST, Pradeep Jagadeesh wrote: >> On 8/8/2017 1:30 PM, Alberto Garcia wrote: >>> On Mon 07 Aug 2017 04:48:38 PM CEST, Markus Armbruster wrote: >>>>>> Awkward question for a v7, but here goes anyway: why is IOThrottle >>>>>> worth its very own .json file? >>>>> I feel this is a common throttle structure that is used by block >>>>> devices as well as fsdev, so moved to a separate file. >>>> I'm not sure that's a good idea. Kevin, Berto, what do you think? >>> >>> Mmm... I don't have a very strong opinion, but if there's no actual need >>> to move it to a separate file I'd prefer to leave it where it is. >> The segregation is the solid reason. Because throttling is a feature >> that is used by fsdev, block may many more in future. I do not see >> moving it back to block does it make any sense? > > It's not "moving it back", it's keeping it where it is. But I see no big > problem with moving it to a common file either. I'd rather not put every struct shared across subsystem boundaries in its own file. We can keep it right where it is for now. Bonus: more readable diff. If we start sharing more throttle-related material than just a struct, we can reconsider. We could also move it to the existing file for common stuff: qapi/common.json. Not a great fit, though.