From: "Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>
To: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Markus Armbruster" <armbru@redhat.com>,
"Peter Maydell" <peter.maydell@linaro.org>,
"Eduardo Habkost" <eduardo@habkost.net>,
"Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
"Mark Cave-Ayland" <mark.cave-ayland@ilande.co.uk>,
"Igor Mammedov" <imammedo@redhat.com>,
"Michael S . Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
"Alex Williamson" <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
"Dr . David Alan Gilbert" <dave@treblig.org>,
"Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@linaro.org>,
"Cédric Le Goater" <clg@redhat.com>,
"Fabiano Rosas" <farosas@suse.de>,
"Juraj Marcin" <jmarcin@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 0/7] QOM: Singleton interface
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2024 18:07:08 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZyJ1zJoOaLuNHPI-@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241029211607.2114845-1-peterx@redhat.com>
On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 05:16:00PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241024165627.1372621-1-peterx@redhat.com
>
> This patchset introduces the singleton interface for QOM. I didn't add a
> changelog because there're quite a few changes here and there, plus new
> patches. So it might just be easier to re-read, considering the patchset
> isn't large.
>
> I switched v2 into RFC, because we have reviewer concerns (Phil and Dan so
> far) that it could be error prone to try to trap every attempts to create
> an object. My argument is, if we already have abstract class, meanwhile we
> do not allow instantiation of abstract class, so the complexity is already
> there. I prepared patch 1 this time to collect and track all similar
> random object creations; it might be helpful as a cleanup on its own to
> deduplicate some similar error messages. Said that, I'm still always open
> to rejections to this proposal.
>
> I hope v2 looks slightly cleaner by having not only object_new_allowed()
> but also object_new_or_fetch().
For me, that doesn't really make it much more appealing. Yes, we already have
an abstract class, but that has narrower impact, as there are fewer places
in which which we can trigger instantiation of an abstract class, than
where we can trigger instantiation of arbitrary objects and devices.
The conversion of the iommu code results in worse error reporting, and
doesn't handle the virtio-iommu case, and the migration problems appear
solvable without inventing a singleton interface. So this doesn't feel
like it is worth the the trouble.
NB, my view point would have been different if 'object_new' had an
"Error *errp" parameter. That would have made handling failure a
standard part of the design pattern for object construction, thus
avoiding adding asserts in the 'object_new' codepath which could be
triggered by unexpected/badly validated user input.
With regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-10-30 18:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-10-29 21:16 [PATCH RFC v2 0/7] QOM: Singleton interface Peter Xu
2024-10-29 21:16 ` [PATCH RFC v2 1/7] qom: Track dynamic initiations of random object class Peter Xu
2024-10-29 21:16 ` [PATCH RFC v2 2/7] qom: TYPE_SINGLETON interface Peter Xu
2024-10-29 21:16 ` [PATCH RFC v2 3/7] qdev: Make device_set_realized() be fully prepared with !machine Peter Xu
2024-10-29 21:16 ` [PATCH RFC v2 4/7] qdev: Make qdev_get_machine() safe before machine creates Peter Xu
2024-10-29 21:16 ` [PATCH RFC v2 5/7] x86/iommu: Make x86-iommu a singleton object Peter Xu
2024-10-30 10:33 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2024-10-30 13:01 ` Peter Xu
2024-10-30 13:07 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2024-10-30 14:33 ` Peter Xu
2024-10-29 21:16 ` [PATCH RFC v2 6/7] migration: Make migration object " Peter Xu
2024-10-29 21:16 ` [PATCH RFC v2 7/7] migration: Reset current_migration properly Peter Xu
2024-10-30 9:48 ` [PATCH RFC v2 0/7] QOM: Singleton interface Daniel P. Berrangé
2024-10-30 13:13 ` Peter Xu
2024-10-30 16:13 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2024-10-30 17:51 ` Peter Xu
2024-10-30 17:58 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2024-10-30 18:55 ` Peter Xu
2024-10-30 18:07 ` Daniel P. Berrangé [this message]
2024-10-30 19:08 ` Peter Xu
2024-10-31 15:57 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
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=ZyJ1zJoOaLuNHPI-@redhat.com \
--to=berrange@redhat.com \
--cc=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
--cc=armbru@redhat.com \
--cc=clg@redhat.com \
--cc=dave@treblig.org \
--cc=eduardo@habkost.net \
--cc=farosas@suse.de \
--cc=imammedo@redhat.com \
--cc=jmarcin@redhat.com \
--cc=mark.cave-ayland@ilande.co.uk \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peter.maydell@linaro.org \
--cc=peterx@redhat.com \
--cc=philmd@linaro.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).