On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 15:41:21 +0100 Halil Pasic <pa...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On 11/28/2017 04:21 PM, Halil Pasic wrote: > [..] > >>> Otherwise at first glance both patches seem sane. > >> > >> Can I count this as an ack, or do you plan to do more review? > >> > > > > Yes I was planning to give it another look. And I do already > > have questions. Isn't the QOM composition tree API? I mean > > let's assume the QMP commands working on this tree are not completely > > useless. How is client code (management software) supposed to work, > > assumed it can rely on paths of e.g. properties being stable. Just > > imagine we had this default-cssid property (for the sake of the > > argument, not like we want it) on the css bridge. > > Ping! I would like to get this clarified before proceeding with reviewing > this series. [It might be helpful to not drop cc:s.] I don't think we really want a static tree. As long as the devices are locateable, it should be fine. > > > > > Now if the composition tree is API then these can only be bug fixes > > (IMHO). > > > > There are also other oddities I've spotted. My idea was to put > > this composition tree discussion on hold until the vfio-ccw stuff > > is sorted out. I would certainly like to build a better understanding. > > > > Halil > > > > [..] > >
