Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH for-2.7 v9 00/17] qapi netdev_add introspection (post-introspection cleanups subset F)

[Markus Armbruster]

Markus Armbruster <address@hidden> writes:

> Eric Blake <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> It's time to expose QMP 'netdev_add' through introspection, and
>> to add boxed commands/events so that we can drastically reduce
>> the number of C parameters needed to implement a command that
>> matches a large QAPI type.
>>
>> Prerequistes:
>> Markus' qapi-next branch (weak; series also applies on master)
>>
>> available as a tag at:
>> git fetch git://repo.or.cz/qemu/ericb.git qapi-cleanupv9f
>> or as part of my qapi branch:
>> git fetch git://repo.or.cz/qemu/ericb.git qapi
>>
>> v8 was here:
>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2016-07/msg00302.html
>>
>> Since then, I've addressed Markus' comments:
>> - s/box/boxed/
>> - fix a useless Python override of c_name()
>> - comment and formatting tweaks
>> - defer event collision prevention until later; for 2.7, we are
>> focusing on the bare minimum needed to take advantage of boxing
>> - implement a promised followup that allows netdev_add to still
>> parse strings the way it did with QemuOpts (thanks Dan for starting
>> that effort)
>>
>> The diffstat from v8 looks big, but a lot of it is mechanical
>> due to the spelling change.  It's late at night, and we're close
>> to hard freeze, so to maximize review time I'm posting now; if I
>> weren't feeling quite as rushed, I might would have swapped the
>> order of 14 vs. 15-17 to avoid even a temporary behavior change
>> in netdev_add.  On the other hand, 14 has had review, while 15-17
>> are effectively new, and it is feasible that we may be comfortable
>> enough with the new type-safety constraints of 14 to not want
>> to bother with 15-17 loosening things back up, given that we are
>> already in soft freeze.
>
> PATCH 01-13 with the few overlooked instanced of 'box' corrected:
> Reviewed-by: Markus Armbruster <address@hidden>

Pushed to qapi-next with PATCH 11 replaced by your update.

> PATCH 14-17 need careful consideration.  It's very late in the cycle,
> which means there's little time to correct mistakes before they become
> ABI.  Risks upsetting the release with last minute corrections.

Pushed to qapi-not-next for now.

> The safest option is to punt to the next cycle.  Would be a shame,
> though.
>
> I need to read your discussion of the backward compatibility patches,
> and the patches themselves, carefully.