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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97A69C433E0 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 15:23:56 +0000 (UTC) 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 mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6626E2070E for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 15:23:56 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="B3fUD4x9" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 6626E2070E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:52418 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jnkmB-0005RE-JW for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 11:23:55 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:45576) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jnkl6-0004XM-HM for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 11:22:48 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com ([205.139.110.120]:48580 helo=us-smtp-1.mimecast.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jnkl3-0007o5-RG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 11:22:48 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1592925764; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=yurOEOR3+8OV7Dyuj+11/b4vu7uceWZ/I62bnyA8Ua4=; b=B3fUD4x9SovfERfu9uIvfGsYKaQoqXjTjXo76VCxc1dfnJmD7iTDXY80XCCgGR/NSa3Jmq p9abv9oW5uQjcF+yaQOqXOXPXfopTxnemaO4akODixXt7Y0Cf0iGpM1rUJYfDfSex6T3OQ hCCk4XwNiKidtPJko+JZVihLzhJMH2g= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-28-K_kaor1YPV62cLTXSoxDUw-1; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 11:22:38 -0400 X-MC-Unique: K_kaor1YPV62cLTXSoxDUw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5636E1005512; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 15:22:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.36.114.197] (ovpn-114-197.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.114.197]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D685D7166A; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 15:22:34 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] qdev: Introduce DEFINE_PROP_RESERVED_REGION To: Markus Armbruster References: <20200611151209.22547-1-eric.auger@redhat.com> <20200611151209.22547-2-eric.auger@redhat.com> <87k0zzz6nt.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <87imfhhkyz.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> From: Auger Eric Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 17:22:33 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87imfhhkyz.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> Content-Language: en-US X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.11 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=eric.auger@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received-SPF: pass client-ip=205.139.110.120; envelope-from=eric.auger@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-1.mimecast.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/06/23 01:53:54 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -30 X-Spam_score: -3.1 X-Spam_bar: --- X-Spam_report: (-3.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=_AUTOLEARN X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: peter.maydell@linaro.org, mst@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, peterx@redhat.com, qemu-arm@nongnu.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, jean-philippe@linaro.org, bbhushan2@marvell.com, eric.auger.pro@gmail.com Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" Hi Markus, On 6/23/20 5:15 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Auger Eric writes: > >> Hi Markus, >> >> On 6/22/20 1:22 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >>> Eric Auger writes: >>> >>>> Introduce a new property defining a reserved region: >>>> , , . > [...] >>> I dimly remember discussing the wisdom of numeric type here, dig, dig, >>> ..., aha: >>> >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH for-5.0 v11 12/20] qapi: Introduce DEFINE_PROP_INTERVAL >>> Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 11:03:02 +0100 >>> Message-ID: <87y2vg4k6h.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> >>> >>> >> So the "label" part of ",,label" is a number? >>> > yes it is. >>> >> >>> >> Is a number appropriate for your use case, or would an enum be better? >>> > I think a number is OK. There might be other types of reserved regions >>> > in the future. Also if we want to allow somebody else to reuse that >>> > property in another context, I would rather leave it open? >>> >>> I'd prioritize the user interface over possible reuse (which might never >>> happen). Mind, I'm not telling you using numbers is a bad user >>> interface. In general, enums are nicer, but I don't know enough about >>> this particular case. >> Yep I remember too ;-) I left as it was because I think this property >> could be used for other use cases. > > YAGNI :) > > A string would work, too, wouldn't it? :-) Eric > > [...] > >