On 18.10.23 09:47, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsement...@yandex-team.ru> writes:
On 17.10.23 18:00, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsement...@yandex-team.ru> writes:
Send a new event when guest reads virtio-pci config after
virtio_notify_config() call.
That's useful to check that guest fetched modified config, for example
after resizing disk backend.
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsement...@yandex-team.ru>
[...]
diff --git a/qapi/qdev.json b/qapi/qdev.json
index 2468f8bddf..37a8785b81 100644
--- a/qapi/qdev.json
+++ b/qapi/qdev.json
@@ -329,3 +329,25 @@
# Since: 8.2
##
{ 'command': 'x-device-sync-config', 'data': {'id': 'str'} }
+
+##
+# @X_CONFIG_READ:
+#
+# Emitted whenever guest reads virtio device config after config change.
+#
+# @device: device name
+#
+# @path: device path
+#
+# Since: 5.0.1-24
+#
+# Example:
+#
+# <- { "event": "X_CONFIG_READ",
+# "data": { "device": "virtio-net-pci-0",
+# "path": "/machine/peripheral/virtio-net-pci-0" },
+# "timestamp": { "seconds": 1265044230, "microseconds": 450486 } }
+#
+##
+{ 'event': 'X_CONFIG_READ',
+ 'data': { '*device': 'str', 'path': 'str' } }
The commit message talks about event CONFIG_READ, but you actually name
it x-device-sync-config.
will fix
I figure you use x- to signify "unstable". Please use feature flag
'unstable' for that. See docs/devel/qapi-code-gen.rst section
"Features", in particular "Special features", and also the note on x- in
section "Naming rules and reserved names".
OK, will do.
Hmm, it say
Names beginning with ``x-`` used to signify "experimental". This
convention has been replaced by special feature "unstable".
"replaced".. So, I should use "unstable" flag without "x-" prefix? Can't find an example. Seems
"unstable" always used together with "x-".
True.
The "x-" prefix originated with qdev properties. First use might be
commit f0c07c7c7b4. The convention wasn't documented then, but QOM/qdev
properties have always been a documentation wasteland. It then spread
to other places, and eventually to the QAPI schema. Where we try pretty
hard to document things properly. We documented the "x-" prefix in
commit e790e666518:
Any name (command, event, type, field, or enum value) beginning with
"x-" is marked experimental, and may be withdrawn or changed
incompatibly in a future release.
Minor pain point: when things grow up from experimental to stable, we
have to rename.
The convention didn't stop us from naming non-experimental things x-FOO,
e.g. QOM property "x-origin" in commit 6105683da35. Made it to the QAPI
schema in commit 8825587b53c. Point is: the prefix isn't a reliable
marker for "unstable".
Since I needed a reliable marker for my "set policy for unstable
interfaces" feature (see CLI option -compat), I created special feature
flag "unstable", and dropped the "x-" convention for the QAPI schema.
Renaming existing "x-" names felt like pointless churn, so I didn't.
I'm not objecting to new names starting with "x-". Nor am I objecting
to feature 'unstable' on names that don't start with "x-".
I guess "x-" remains just fine for things we don't intend to make stable
at some point. The "x-" can remind humans "this is unstable" better
than a feature flag can (for machines, it's the other way round).
For things we do intend (hope?) to make stable, I wouldn't bother with
the "x-".
Clearer now?
Yes, thanks.
x- seems safer for management tool that doesn't know about "unstable"
properties..
But on the other hand, changing from x- to no-prefix is already done when the
feature is stable, and thouse who use it already use the latest version of
interface, so, removing the prefix is just extra work.
So, I think, I'd go without prefix.
Also, nothing said about events. Is using "X_" wrong idea? Should it be
x-SOME_EVENT instead?
Since this is the first unstable event, there is no precedent. Let's
use no prefix, and move on.
The name CONFIG_READ feels overly generic for something that makes sense
only with virtio devices.
Hmm, right.. I think, we can say same thing about DEVICE_UNPLUG_GUEST_ERROR.
That one came to be as a generalization of existing MEM_UNPLUG_ERROR and
a concrete need to signal CPU unplug errors. Demonstrates "unplug guest
errors" can happen for different kinds of devices. So we went with a
generic event we can use for all of them.
This doesn't seem to be the case for this patch's event. Thoughts?
Right.. VIRTIO_CONFIG_READ maybe?
So, what about DEVICE_GUEST_READ_CONFIG ?
diff --git a/softmmu/qdev-monitor.c b/softmmu/qdev-monitor.c
index b485375049..d0f022e925 100644
--- a/softmmu/qdev-monitor.c
+++ b/softmmu/qdev-monitor.c
@@ -1252,3 +1252,8 @@ void qdev_hotplug_device_on_event(DeviceState *dev)
dev->device_on_event_sent = true;
qapi_event_send_x_device_on(dev->id, dev->canonical_path);
}
+
+void qdev_config_read_event(DeviceState *dev)
+{
+ qapi_event_send_x_config_read(dev->id, dev->canonical_path);
+}
--
Best regards,
Vladimir
