On Wed, Aug 07, 2024 at 01:21:25PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> writes: > > > On Wed, Aug 07, 2024 at 12:50:26PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: > >> Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> writes: > > [...] > > >> > It is confusing that we have both shared stuff and QMP schema > >> > only stuff under the same location. > >> > >> Which stuff in which location? > > > > There are multiple directories with 'qapi' in their name > > > > - $SRC/include/qapi - all generic stuff for any consumer of QAPI > > - $SRC/qapi - impl of generic stuff from $SRC/include/qapi, but > > also the QMP schema for machine emulator > > - $BUILD/qapi - generated code for QMP schema for machine emulator > > - scripts/qapi - the generator code > > > > > I find it confusing that we have both generic QAPI code and the main > > machine emulator QMP schema in directories sharing the same 'qapi' > > name. > > Got it. > > Lack of separation between generic C infrastructure and specific schema > hasn't really annoyed me. Possibly because the two are, for better or > worse, joined at the hip. Except for the use of "qapi:" in commit > message titles; there I've at times felt a slight urge to distinguish > between schema work, C infrastructure work, and generator work. > > Of course, other people's confusion trumps my non-annoyance.
When we first introduced the QAPI/QMP schema for system emulator of course it was fine, since we didn't have QGA usage. Now days we have a dedicate $SRCDIR/system directory for the system emulators, so I wonder if its worth putting the system emulator schemas in there instead ? Caveat is that the QSD also uses some of this schema. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
