Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-block] [PATCH v5 3/4] qmp: add monitor command to add/remove a child

[Dr. David Alan Gilbert]

* Max Reitz (address@hidden) wrote:
> On 09.10.2015 18:42, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > * Max Reitz (address@hidden) wrote:
> >> On 08.10.2015 08:15, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >>> Max Reitz <address@hidden> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> On 22.09.2015 09:44, Wen Congyang wrote:
> >>>>> The new QMP command name is x-blockdev-child-add, and 
> >>>>> x-blockdev-child-del.
> >>>>> It justs for adding/removing quorum's child now, and don't support all
> >>>>> kinds of children,
> >>>>
> >>>> It does support all kinds of children for quorum, doesn't it?
> >>>>
> >>>>>                    nor all block drivers. So it is experimental now.
> >>>>
> >>>> Well, that is not really a reason why we would have to make it
> >>>> experimental. For instance, blockdev-add (although some might argue it
> >>>> actually is experimental...) doesn't support all block drivers either.
> >>>
> >>> Yup, and not calling it x-blockdev-add until it's done was a mistake.
> >>> People tried using it, then found its current limitations the painful
> >>> way.  Not nice.
> >>
> >> I knew I should have written s/some might/Markus does/. ;-)
> >>
> >>>> The reason I am hesitant of adding an experimental QMP interface that is
> >>>> actually visible to the user (compare x-image in blkverify and blkdebug,
> >>>> which are not documented and not to be used by the user) is twofold:
> >>>>
> >>>> (1) At some point we have to say "OK, this is good enough now" and make
> >>>>     it stable. What would that point be? Who can guarantee that we
> >>>>     wouldn't want to make any interface changes after that point?
> >>>
> >>> Nobody can, just like for any other interface.  So?
> >>
> >> The main question is "what would that point be". As I can see you're
> >> arguing that that point would be "once people want to use it", but I'm
> >> arguing that people want to use it today or we wouldn't need this
> >> interface at all.
> >>
> >> I'm against adding external experimental interface because having
> >> external interface indicates that someone wants to use them, but making
> >> them experimental indicates that nobody should use them.
> >>
> >> This interface is added for the COLO series. The documentation added in
> >> patch 5 there explains usage of COLO with x-child-add. I don't think
> >> that should be there, because it's experimental. But why have an
> >> external interface if nobody should use it anyway?
> > 
> > Because it lets people move forward; the COLO series is pretty huge, there
> > already seem to be side discussions spawning off about dynamic 
> > reconfiguration
> > of stuff, who knows how long those will take to pan out.
> 
> Yes, and my point is that with these functions
> (blockdev-child-{add,del}) the result of that side discussion doesn't
> matter.
> 
> > Adding the experimental stuff makes it easier for people to try and
> > get some feedback on.
> 
> The thing is, I cannot imagine any feedback that would necessitate an
> incompatible change. “I want to change quorum's options while
> adding/removing children” can easily be accomplished with an additional
> optional parameter.
> 
> But I do know that we want to keep things experimental exactly because
> there can be feedback which I cannot imagine right now.
> 
> > If everyone turns out to love it then it only takes a trivial patch to 
> > promote
> > it; if people actually realise there is a better interface then it's
> > no problem to change it either - x- doesn't stop any one using it,
> 
> But it should, shouldn't it? No management tool should be using an x-
> command, as far as I know. And these are functions which are clearly
> designed for management tools.
> 
> If management tools are indeed free to use x- functions, then I'm
> completely fine with making these experimental for now. It's just that
> it looks to me like “Hey, look, we have these two new functions you can
> use!” and then, two versions later we remove them because we have a
> general reconfiguration option, and we'll say “It's your own fault for
> using experimental functions” if someone complains. That sounds
> hypocritical to me, but I'm probably being to “legal” here.
>
> (i.e. it's more like “Hey, look, two new cool functions! But don't use
> them.” which sounds like a contradiction to me, whereas it actually
> means “Feel free to use them but don't blame us”)
> 
> tl;dr: May management tools use x- functions? And is it actually
> conceivable for them to do so? If so, my whole argument becomes moot, so
> let's make these functions x-.

My guess is the libvirt guys wont take the code to drive the x- methods;
but it still makes it easier if someone wants to try this stuff out, they
wont need to apply 2/3 sets of COLO code and then any management tools.

> Mainly I'd like to know about some example where we had an x- function
> in the past. Markus seemed to imply that was the case.

The RDMA code used to have x- for migration protocol and some of the
capabilities; we've recently added Jason Herne's cpu throttling with
similar x- flags (1626fee3bdbb295d5e8aff800f7621357bb376d6),
and input-send-event got moved into the x- world 
(df5b2adb7398d71016ee469f71e52075ed95e04e)
which is much worse than it starting out there.

Dave

> 
> Max
> 
> >                                                                    but it
> > does remove their right to moan if it changes.
> > 
> > Dave
> 
> 


--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / address@hidden / Manchester, UK