From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 64427C02194 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2025 10:09:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tfyoI-0008E0-76; Thu, 06 Feb 2025 05:08:38 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tfyoA-0008CN-Pj; Thu, 06 Feb 2025 05:08:31 -0500 Received: from mgamail.intel.com ([198.175.65.14]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tfyo7-0001lM-Ae; Thu, 06 Feb 2025 05:08:30 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1738836507; x=1770372507; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=oP0y8I2b0k86JdcYw9jox2qnw26MXTvDoDpMb9y/Ax4=; b=AuJN5K6d4ga3UGvFjOeugAV4SfZo+3Ev3kD04Bc84eSSkE9hE+Gf7Iqk ytTjMyMI/8uI9rLV8Qn8/qBcPm47Ovcx2X8XRIRzC2oWp1vNnqn6uhTbs xoneDfBPDBjA90ACY9iKyuDimvuFTzVSiuPKqkhW2Y5rqzvQZUOkxOKQo QTKLS244Z7Mwqci1SrgK81XMgZbHikF4/40sxFcB+RgB6wmGlC5c/1kk+ 0W8WbuyRez7pZBVajnAl+M1atW/i5SwssAMHy7TMJTyyoDI6nYBvqt3ji gQ67+2aDYGzOoGEKOvXIjN4d5sQZie7Z5O7DwNW6vHmOlGJCM6BspqxEF w==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: UxU7t8J2QDGOzamvirjPmw== X-CSE-MsgGUID: xUVPm0e8Q+GjMXlM3rN5jg== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11336"; a="43187318" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.13,264,1732608000"; d="scan'208";a="43187318" Received: from fmviesa009.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.149]) by orvoesa106.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Feb 2025 02:08:23 -0800 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: na8BE7FXTjK8oidnTjBbzw== X-CSE-MsgGUID: twhacpdTQ+mS2Rq1hHFoAw== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.13,264,1732608000"; d="scan'208";a="111744739" Received: from liuzhao-optiplex-7080.sh.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.239.160.39]) by fmviesa009.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 06 Feb 2025 02:08:19 -0800 Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2025 18:27:48 +0800 From: Zhao Liu To: Markus Armbruster Cc: Paolo Bonzini , Eric Blake , Michael Roth , Daniel P =?utf-8?B?LiBCZXJyYW5n77+9?= , Eduardo Habkost , Marcelo Tosatti , Shaoqin Huang , Eric Auger , Peter Maydell , Laurent Vivier , Thomas Huth , Sebastian Ott , Gavin Shan , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, qemu-arm@nongnu.org, Dapeng Mi , Yi Lai Subject: Re: [RFC v2 1/5] qapi/qom: Introduce kvm-pmu-filter object Message-ID: References: <20250122090517.294083-1-zhao1.liu@intel.com> <20250122090517.294083-2-zhao1.liu@intel.com> <871pwc3dyw.fsf@pond.sub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=198.175.65.14; envelope-from=zhao1.liu@intel.com; helo=mgamail.intel.com X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org > > > @@ -1183,6 +1185,7 @@ > > > 'if': 'CONFIG_LINUX' }, > > > 'iommufd': 'IOMMUFDProperties', > > > 'iothread': 'IothreadProperties', > > > + 'kvm-pmu-filter': 'KVMPMUFilterPropertyVariant', > > > > The others are like > > > > 'mumble': 'MumbleProperties' > > > > Let's stick to that, and also avoid running together multiple > > capitalized acronyms: KvmPmuFilterProperties. > > IIUC, then I should use the name "KvmPmuFilterProperties" (string version > for QAPI), and the name "KvmPmuFilterPropertiesVariant" (numeric version > in codes), do you agree? > Thanks to Daniel's feedback, pmu filter doesn't need the string version anymore. So there's only 1 "KvmPmuFilterProperties" structure in QAPI.