From: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
"Greg Kurz" <groug@kaod.org>,
qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Eric Auger" <eric.auger@redhat.com>,
"Marc-André Lureau" <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>,
"Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
"Eric Blake" <eblake@redhat.com>,
"David Gibson" <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] qapi: Move RTC_CHANGE back out of target schema
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 12:35:48 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87mtijnnfv.fsf@pond.sub.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA-zXMxzBeEPpKYNGy+SSMgkhbLC-aTuYgSXQn7D=WJa2A@mail.gmail.com> (Peter Maydell's message of "Mon, 21 Feb 2022 18:06:15 +0000")
Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> writes:
> On Sat, 25 Sept 2021 at 08:44, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> writes:
>>
>> > This patchset moves RTC_CHANGE back to misc.json, effectively
>> > reverting commit 183e4281a30962, which moved the RTC_CHANGE event to
>> > the target schema. That change was an attempt to make the event
>> > target-specific to improve introspection, but the event isn't really
>> > target-specific: it's machine or device specific. Putting RTC_CHANGE
>> > in the target schema with an ifdef list reduces maintainability (by
>> > adding an if: list with a long list of targets that needs to be
>> > manually updated as architectures are added or removed or as new
>> > devices gain the RTC_CHANGE functionality) and increases compile time
>> > (by preventing RTC devices which emit the event from being "compile
>> > once" rather than "compile once per target", because
>> > qapi-events-misc-target.h uses TARGET_* ifdefs, which are poisoned in
>> > "compile once" files.)
>> >
>> > Patch 2 fixes a minor documentation issue that I noticed while
>> > I was doing this -- we didn't document that the units used in
>> > the RTC_CHANGE event are seconds.
>>
>> Series
>> Reviewed-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
>
> I realized that this patchset never got applied -- I think I was
> expecting it to be picked up via a QAPI related tree, and then
> it was a bit close to a release to be put in, or something.
> Anyway, I'm going to resend it in a moment.
Want me to take care of merging v2?
>> An additional patch documenting that not all RTCs implement RTC_CHANGE
>> would be nice. Listing them would be even nicer.
>
> I disagree that listing them would be nice -- the whole point of
> the series is to avoid having lists that get out of date when we
> add a new RTC implementation or fix the missing-feature in an
> existing one. I can add a sentence to the patch 2 docs change:
> "Note that it is not guaranteed that the RTC in a system implements
> this event, or even that the system has an RTC at all."
For a user, "you can rely on RTC_CHANGE with RTCs x, y, z provided by
machines a, b, c" is definitely nicer than "RTC_CHANGE may or may not
work, good luck", which is in turn nicer than nothing at all.
I think you're arguing for being as nice to users as we can without
having to pay for it in maintenance, which is fair.
>> An additional patch adding @qom-path event argument would be nice.
>
> I don't understand what this would involve, so I'll leave it to you
> if you want it.
Okay.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-02-22 11:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-09-24 14:01 [PATCH 0/2] qapi: Move RTC_CHANGE back out of target schema Peter Maydell
2021-09-24 14:01 ` [PATCH 1/2] " Peter Maydell
2021-09-24 14:07 ` Greg Kurz
2021-09-24 14:01 ` [PATCH 2/2] qapi: Document the units for the offset argument to RTC_CHANGE Peter Maydell
2021-09-25 7:43 ` [PATCH 0/2] qapi: Move RTC_CHANGE back out of target schema Markus Armbruster
2022-02-21 18:06 ` Peter Maydell
2022-02-22 11:35 ` Markus Armbruster [this message]
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=87mtijnnfv.fsf@pond.sub.org \
--to=armbru@redhat.com \
--cc=david@gibson.dropbear.id.au \
--cc=eblake@redhat.com \
--cc=eric.auger@redhat.com \
--cc=groug@kaod.org \
--cc=marcandre.lureau@redhat.com \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peter.maydell@linaro.org \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
/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).