On 11/28/2017 01:24 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > > On 11/28/2017 01:14 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: >> On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 12:49:04 +0100 >> Boris Fiuczynski <fiu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >> >>> On 11/28/2017 11:22 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote: >>>> On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 09:53:15 +0100 >>>> Boris Fiuczynski <fiu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 11/27/2017 05:56 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: >>>>>> Proposal 2: Export the default cssid as a machine property. If this >>>>>> property exists, it also implies that devices can be put into any css >>>>>> image (although it makes the most sense to put them into the default >>>>>> css image as indicated by the property). Can be made r/w later if it is >>>>>> too much for 2.12. >>>>> Just as a side discussion: >>>>> I know of qom command query-machines but that does not seem to provide >>>>> the information you suggest to use with proposal 2. >>> Sorry, I meant query-command-line-options. >>> >>>>> What qom command do you suggest to use for the introspection of the >>>>> machine options access mode? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Is qom-get what you are looking for? >>>> >>>> virsh # qemu-monitor-command vm1 --pretty '{ "execute": "qom-get", >>>> "arguments": { "path": "/machine/", "property": "accel"} }' >>>> { >>>> "return": "kvm", >>>> "id": "libvirt-18" >>>> } >>>> >>> How do you find out from returned values that accel is r/o or r/w? >>> >> >> I read some code and it turns out that we aren't really prepared for >> any r/o opts... sigh. >> >> So, proposal 2 is only viable if we make it configurable from the start. > > I really really dislike option 2. > Binding the capability to "assign freely" to a property that is named default > css is > just wrong. Both capabilities are really independent. >
I fully agree with Christian. > I strongly prefer option 3. > In the meanwhile I strongly prefer option 1 (at the ccw devices). I've just sent a v2, and IMHO it shows the limitations of machine properties very well. >> >> Halil, do you see any chance to do this for 2.12? There's plenty of >> time left, and I don't think it's too hard. If not, we don't have any >> other option than proposal 3, even though I don't like it a lot. >> I do think we have enough time to do this right. And of course I'm willing to do it right. IMHO the 3 options summarized by Connie are not the only options. But if we go for reworking our QOM composition tree, it will take a lot of discussion. I'm not sure all the required people have enough spare time for that. Halil