[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH V4 3/7] qapi/net: Add new QMP command for COLO passthrough

From: Markus Armbruster
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 3/7] qapi/net: Add new QMP command for COLO passthrough
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2021 10:01:15 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux)

"Zhang, Chen" <chen.zhang@intel.com> writes:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Qemu-devel <qemu-devel-
>> bounces+chen.zhang=intel.com@nongnu.org> On Behalf Of Markus
>> Armbruster
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 5:58 PM
>> To: Zhang, Chen <chen.zhang@intel.com>
>> Cc: Lukas Straub <lukasstraub2@web.de>; Li Zhijian
>> <lizhijian@cn.fujitsu.com>; Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>; qemu-
>> dev <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Dr. David Alan Gilbert
>> <dgilbert@redhat.com>; Zhang Chen <zhangckid@gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 3/7] qapi/net: Add new QMP command for COLO
>> passthrough
>> "Zhang, Chen" <chen.zhang@intel.com> writes:
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
>> [...]
>> >> Now let's look at colo-passthrough-del.  I figure it is for deleting
>> >> the kind of things colo-passthrough-add adds.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Yes.
>> >
>> >> What exactly is deleted?  The thing created with the exact same
>> arguments?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Delete the rule from the module's private bypass list.
>> > When user input a rule, the colo-passthrough-del will find the
>> > specific module by the object ID, Then delete the rule.
>> >
>> >> This would be unusual.  Commonly, FOO-add and FOO-del both take a
>> >> string ID argument.  The FOO created by FOO-add remembers its ID, and
>> >> FOO-del deletes by ID.
>> >
>> > The ID not for rules itself, it just logged the modules(ID tagged) 
>> > affected by
>> the rule.
>> I'm not sure I understand.
>> If you're pointing out that existing colo-passthrough-del parameter @id is 
>> not
>> suitable for use as unique rule ID: you can always add another parameter
>> that is suitable.
> Sorry to missed this mail.
> For example:
> The VM running with filter-mirror(object id==0), filter-redirector(object 
> id==1) and colo-compare(object id==2),
> We use  colo-passthrough-add/del to add/del a rule with a ID, if the ID==2, 
> the rule just affect to colo-compare.
> The filter-mirror and filter-redirector feel nothing after the add/del.

I think you're trying to explain existing parameter @id.  The point I
was trying to make is unrelated to this parameter, except by name

My point is: our existing "delete" operations select the object to be
deleted by some unique name that is assigned by the "add" operation.
The unique name is a property of the object.  The property name is
often, but not always "id".


    device_add argument "id" sets the device's unique name.
    device_del argument "id" selects the device to delete by its name.

    blockdev-add argument "node-name" sets the block backend device's
    unique name.
    blockdev-del argument "node-name" selects the block backend device
    to delete by its name.

Is there any particular reason why deletion of your kind of object can't
work the same way?

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]