qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [PATCH v12] qapi: introduce 'query-x86-cpuid' QMP command.


From: Eduardo Habkost
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12] qapi: introduce 'query-x86-cpuid' QMP command.
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 11:55:34 -0400

On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 9:35 AM Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 9:44 AM Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 11/08/2021 15.40, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 2:10 AM Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On 10/08/2021 20.56, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> >> >>> On Sat, Aug 07, 2021 at 04:22:42PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> >>>> Is this intended to be a stable interface?  Interfaces intended just 
> >> >>>> for
> >> >>>> debugging usually aren't.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I don't think we need to make it a stable interface, but I won't
> >> >>> mind if we declare it stable.
> >> >>
> >> >> If we don't feel 100% certain yet, it's maybe better to introduce this 
> >> >> with
> >> >> a "x-" prefix first, isn't it? I.e. "x-query-x86-cpuid" ... then it's 
> >> >> clear
> >> >> that this is only experimental/debugging/not-stable yet. Just my 0.02 €.
> >> >
> >> > That would be my expectation. Is this a documented policy?
> >> >
> >>
> >> According to docs/interop/qmp-spec.txt :
> >>
> >>   Any command or member name beginning with "x-" is deemed
> >>   experimental, and may be withdrawn or changed in an incompatible
> >>   manner in a future release.
> >
> > Thanks! I had looked at other QMP docs, but not qmp-spec.txt.
> >
> > In my reply above, please read "make it a stable interface" as
> > "declare it as supported by not using the 'x-' prefix".
> >
> > I don't think we have to make it stable, but I won't argue against it
> > if the current proposal is deemed acceptable by other maintainers.
> >
> > Personally, I'm still frustrated by the complexity of the current
> > proposal, but I don't want to block it just because of my frustration.
>
> Is this a case of "there must be a simpler way", or did you actually
> propose a simpler way?  I don't remember...
>

I did propose a simpler way at
20210810195053.6vsjadglrexf6jwy@habkost.net/">https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/20210810195053.6vsjadglrexf6jwy@habkost.net/

--
Eduardo




reply via email to

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