On Mon, 7 Mar 2016 12:49:27 +0100 Cornelia Huck <cornelia.h...@de.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Mar 2016 11:12:14 +0100 > Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, 7 Mar 2016 11:02:11 +0100 > > David Hildenbrand <d...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > After all the discussions about > > > > > -device-add s390-cpu,id=XX > > > > > > > > > > As substitute/addition in the future for hotplug it is the > > > > > straightforward > > > > > approach to allow setting the id as property. Nobody knows what crazy > > > > > new > > > > > hotplug method we will come up with. But doing it the device way with > > > > > properties > > > > > cannot be wrong. And the id is a fundamental concept of a vcpu > > > > > (cpu-add id=XX). > > > > with device_add 'id' is not a vcpu concept but and arbitrary user > > > > supplied string > > > > property owned by Device. But since s390 matches current x86 thread > > > > based model it could be migrated to device_add the same way, for > > > > example: > > > > device_add s390-cpu,thread=XX > > > > > > So should we name the property thread then? > > > Looks like the id property is really special. > > > > > > What do you suggest? > > I plan to add 'thread' property to x86-cpu, so you could the same for > > s390 when the time for device_add comes there. > > So the conclusion is to simply deal with this later, right? I'd say so. > > If so, I'll just go ahead and apply v9 :) >
