On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 16:56:30 +0100 Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 15/01/20 16:06, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > > > + object_property_add_link(obj, "ram-memdev", TYPE_MEMORY_BACKEND, > > + (Object **)&ms->ram_memdev, > > + object_property_allow_set_link, > > + OBJ_PROP_LINK_STRONG, &error_abort); > > + object_property_set_description(obj, "ram-memdev", > > + "Set RAM backend" > > + "Valid value is ID of hostmem based > > backend", > > + &error_abort); > > + > > Obligatory bikeshedding, why not just ram (the MachineState field can > remain "ram_memdev"). Or memory-backend matching the QOM type names. I'd say it was inspired by "-numa node,memdev" option for some sort of consistency. But I'm fine with any other name as far as there is consensus. If I had to choose between 'ram' and 'memory-backend', I'd go for the later. > > Paolo >
