Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 2/6] migration: let MigrationState be a qdev

[Peter Xu]

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 01:13:49PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 12:46:09PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 03:39:24PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> > > Peter Xu <address@hidden> writes:
> > > 
> > > > Let the old man "MigrationState" join the object family. Direct benefit
> > > > is that we can start to use all the property features derived from
> > > > current QDev, like: HW_COMPAT_* bits, command line setup for migration
> > > > parameters (so will never need to set them up each time using HMP/QMP,
> > > > this is really, really attractive for test writters), etc.
> > > >
> > > > I see no reason to disallow this happen yet. So let's start from this
> > > > one, to see whether it would be anything good.
> > > >
> > > > No functional change at all.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <address@hidden>
> > > > ---
> > > >  include/migration/migration.h | 19 ++++++++++++++
> > > >  migration/migration.c         | 61 
> > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
> > > >  2 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/include/migration/migration.h 
> > > > b/include/migration/migration.h
> > > > index 79b5484..bd0186c 100644
> > > > --- a/include/migration/migration.h
> > > > +++ b/include/migration/migration.h
> > > > @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@
> > > >  #include "qapi-types.h"
> > > >  #include "exec/cpu-common.h"
> > > >  #include "qemu/coroutine_int.h"
> > > > +#include "hw/qdev.h"
> > > >  
> > > >  #define QEMU_VM_FILE_MAGIC           0x5145564d
> > > >  #define QEMU_VM_FILE_VERSION_COMPAT  0x00000002
> > > > @@ -49,6 +50,8 @@ enum mig_rp_message_type {
> > > >      MIG_RP_MSG_MAX
> > > >  };
> > > >  
> > > > +#define TYPE_MIGRATION "migration"
> > > > +
> > > >  /* State for the incoming migration */
> > > >  struct MigrationIncomingState {
> > > >      QEMUFile *from_src_file;
> > > > @@ -91,8 +94,24 @@ struct MigrationIncomingState {
> > > >  MigrationIncomingState *migration_incoming_get_current(void);
> > > >  void migration_incoming_state_destroy(void);
> > > >  
> > > > +#define MIGRATION_CLASS(klass) \
> > > > +    OBJECT_CLASS_CHECK(MigrationClass, (klass), TYPE_MIGRATION)
> > > > +#define MIGRATION_OBJ(obj) \
> > > > +    OBJECT_CHECK(MigrationState, (obj), TYPE_MIGRATION)
> > > > +#define MIGRATION_GET_CLASS(obj) \
> > > > +    OBJECT_GET_CLASS(MigrationClass, (obj), TYPE_MIGRATION)
> > > > +
> > > > +typedef struct MigrationClass {
> > > > +    /*< private >*/
> > > > +    DeviceClass parent_class;
> > > > +} MigrationClass;
> > > > +
> > > >  struct MigrationState
> > > >  {
> > > > +    /*< private >*/
> > > > +    DeviceState parent_obj;
> > > > +
> > > > +    /*< public >*/
> > > 
> > > Turning MigrationState into a QOM object so you can use QOM
> > > infrastructure makes sense.  But why turn it into a device?  It doesn't
> > > feel device-like to me.  Would ObjectClass and Object instead of
> > > DeviceClass and DeviceState do?
> > 
> > Yeah. That's the main reason for the series to be (was) RFC.
> > 
> > I was trying to use the HW_COMPAT_* bits and -global, and that's QDev
> > thing (IIUC you got that already :). I am just curious about why that
> > is not for QObject from the very beginning, then it'll be easier.
> > 
> > For now, IMHO QDev is okay as well for migration, as long as it's kept
> > internally inside QEMU. But sure at least I should turn user_creatable
> > to off. I'll investigate more to see how to make this a safer approach
> > in next post.
> 
> We could allow non-device QOM objects use the global property
> system optionally.
> 
> We could make qdev_prop_set_globals() work on any Object*, and
> let QOM classes call it on post_init if they want to be
> configurable by global properties too.
> 
> Note that this would break qdev_prop_check_globals(), because it
> expects globals to work only on TYPE_DEVICE.  We could address
> that by introducing a new interface type to indicate the type
> works with -global (something like
> INTERFACE_CONFIGURABLE_BY_GLOBAL_PROPERTIES, but shorter?).
> 
> Such a system would probably allow us to replace
> default_machine_opts, default_boot_order, default_display,
> default_ram_size (and probably many other compat fields) on
> MachineClass.  It could also be used to implement -machine and
> -accel options by simply translating them to global properties
> (like we already do for -cpu).
> 
> (This sounds like reinventing a QemuOpts-like system on top of
> global properties.  Maybe that's a bad thing, maybe that's a good
> thing.  I'm not sure.)

Thanks Eduardo for the reviews and suggestions. 

It'll obviously benefit us a lot if all the objects can use the global
properties and the *_COMPAT_* legacy magic, while the tricky point is
that, QObject will then depend on QDev?

Generally speaking this sounds good to me.  Before I do anything else,
I believe I should wait to see how other QOM developers think about
it.  Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu