On 1/15/20 5:39 PM, Igor Mammedov wrote:
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.
+1 for "memory-backend".
