qemu-devel.nongnu.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
To: Denis Plotnikov <dplotnikov@virtuozzo.com>
Cc: "kwolf@redhat.com" <kwolf@redhat.com>,
	Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>,
	"berrange@redhat.com" <berrange@redhat.com>,
	Denis Lunev <den@virtuozzo.com>,
	"qemu-block@nongnu.org" <qemu-block@nongnu.org>,
	"qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
	"mreitz@redhat.com" <mreitz@redhat.com>,
	"pbonzini@redhat.com" <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v0 1/2] qdev-properties-system: extend set_pionter for unrealized devices
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 12:30:11 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191125153011.GL4438@habkost.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d5d3ac62-4f46-08d6-bf66-620e410fa954@virtuozzo.com>

On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 11:36:30AM +0000, Denis Plotnikov wrote:
> 
> 
> On 18.11.2019 21:54, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 10:03:09PM +0300, Denis Plotnikov wrote:
> >> Some device's property can be changed if the device has been already
> >> realized. For example, it could be "drive" property of a scsi disk device.
> >>
> >> So far, set_pointer could operate only on a relized device. The patch
> >> extends its interface for operation on an unrealized device.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Denis Plotnikov <dplotnikov@virtuozzo.com>
> >> ---
> >>   hw/core/qdev-properties-system.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> >>   1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/hw/core/qdev-properties-system.c b/hw/core/qdev-properties-system.c
> >> index ba412dd2ca..c534590dcd 100644
> >> --- a/hw/core/qdev-properties-system.c
> >> +++ b/hw/core/qdev-properties-system.c
> >> @@ -38,9 +38,14 @@ static void get_pointer(Object *obj, Visitor *v, Property *prop,
> >>   }
> >>   
> >>   static void set_pointer(Object *obj, Visitor *v, Property *prop,
> >> -                        void (*parse)(DeviceState *dev, const char *str,
> >> -                                      void **ptr, const char *propname,
> >> -                                      Error **errp),
> >> +                        void (*parse_realized)(DeviceState *dev,
> >> +                                               const char *str, void **ptr,
> >> +                                               const char *propname,
> >> +                                               Error **errp),
> >> +                        void (*parse_unrealized)(DeviceState *dev,
> >> +                                                 const char *str, void **ptr,
> >> +                                                 const char *propname,
> >> +                                                 Error **errp),
> >>                           const char *name, Error **errp)
> > Wouldn't it be simpler to just add a PropertyInfo::allow_set_after_realize
> > bool field, and call the same setter function?  Then you can
> > simply change do_parse_drive() to check if realized is true.
> May be, but I thought It would be more clear to have a separate callback 
> for all the devices supporting the property setting when realized.
> Also the "drive" property setting on realized and non-realized device a 
> little bit different: in the realized case the setter function expects 
> to get
> BlockDriverState only, when in the unrealized case the setter can accept 
> both BlockBackend and BlockDriverState. Also, in the unrealized case the 
> setter function doesn't expect to have a device with an empty BlockBackend.
> I decided that extending do_parse_drive would make it more complex for 
> understanding. That's why I made two separate functions for both cases.

I understand you might want two separate functions in the
specific case of drive.  You can still call different
functions after checking dev->realized inside do_parse_drive().

My point was that you don't need to make set_pointer() require
two separate function pointers just to propagate 1 bit of
information that is already available in DeviceState.  In patch
2/2 you had to create 4 different copies of parse_drive*()
because of this.


> 
> I'd like to mention that I have a few concerns about 
> do_parse_drive_realized (please see the next patch from the series) and 
> I'd like them to be reviewed as well. After that, may be it would be 
> better to go the way you suggested.

In the case if your questions in patch 2/2, I'm afraid I don't
know the answers and we need help from the block maintainers.

-- 
Eduardo



  reply	other threads:[~2019-11-25 15:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-11-10 19:03 [PATCH v0 0/2] allow to set 'drive' property on a realized block device Denis Plotnikov
2019-11-10 19:03 ` [PATCH v0 1/2] qdev-properties-system: extend set_pionter for unrealized devices Denis Plotnikov
2019-11-18 18:54   ` Eduardo Habkost
2019-11-22 11:36     ` Denis Plotnikov
2019-11-25 15:30       ` Eduardo Habkost [this message]
2019-11-26  6:49         ` Denis Plotnikov
2019-11-26 16:38           ` Kevin Wolf
2019-11-10 19:03 ` [PATCH v0 2/2] block: allow to set 'drive' property on a realized block device Denis Plotnikov
2019-11-10 19:08   ` Denis Plotnikov
2019-11-18 10:50     ` Denis Plotnikov
2019-12-13  7:30       ` [PING]Re: " Denis Plotnikov
2019-12-13 10:32       ` Kevin Wolf
2019-12-16 14:51         ` Denis Plotnikov
2019-12-16 15:38           ` Kevin Wolf
2019-12-16 15:58             ` Denis Plotnikov
2019-11-18 10:30 ` [PATCH v0 0/2] " Denis Plotnikov
2020-03-02 13:38 ` Kevin Wolf
2020-03-02 13:55   ` Denis Plotnikov
2020-03-02 15:39     ` Kevin Wolf
2020-03-03  7:43       ` Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20191125153011.GL4438@habkost.net \
    --to=ehabkost@redhat.com \
    --cc=berrange@redhat.com \
    --cc=den@virtuozzo.com \
    --cc=dplotnikov@virtuozzo.com \
    --cc=kwolf@redhat.com \
    --cc=mreitz@redhat.com \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=qemu-block@nongnu.org \
    --cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
    --cc=vsementsov@virtuozzo.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).