Re: [PATCH 2/9] qapi: Mark unstable QMP parts with feature 'unstable'
Am 29.10.2021 um 15:07 hat Eric Blake geschrieben:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 07:25:25AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> > Add special feature 'unstable' everywhere the name starts with 'x-',
> > except for InputBarrierProperties member x-origin and
> > MemoryBackendProperties member x-use-canonical-path-for-ramblock-id,
> > because these two are actually stable.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster
> > ---
> > @@ -2495,27 +2508,57 @@
> > #
> > # Properties for throttle-group objects.
> > #
> > -# The options starting with x- are aliases for the same key without x- in
> > -# the @limits object. As indicated by the x- prefix, this is not a stable
> > -# interface and may be removed or changed incompatibly in the future. Use
> > -# @limits for a supported stable interface.
> > -#
> > # @limits: limits to apply for this throttle group
> > #
> > +# Features:
> > +# @unstable: All members starting with x- are aliases for the same key
> > +#without x- in the @limits object. This is not a stable
> > +#interface and may be removed or changed incompatibly in
> > +#the future. Use @limits for a supported stable
> > +#interface.
> > +#
> > # Since: 2.11
> > ##
> > { 'struct': 'ThrottleGroupProperties',
> >'data': { '*limits': 'ThrottleLimits',
> > -'*x-iops-total' : 'int', '*x-iops-total-max' : 'int',
>
> > +'*x-iops-total': { 'type': 'int',
> > + 'features': [ 'unstable' ] },
>
> This struct has been around since 381bd74 (v6.0); but was not listed
> as deprecated at the time. Do we still need it in 6.2, or have we
> gone enough release cycles with the saner naming without x- that we
> could drop this? But that is a question independent of this patch.
There is no reason any more to use the x- options, and I think libvirt
never used them anyway.
I actually have a commit in my QAPI object branch that removes these
properties, but I think it still broke some tests.
Anyway, something for a separate patch.
Kevin
Re: [PATCH 2/9] qapi: Mark unstable QMP parts with feature 'unstable'
On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 07:25:25AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Add special feature 'unstable' everywhere the name starts with 'x-',
> except for InputBarrierProperties member x-origin and
> MemoryBackendProperties member x-use-canonical-path-for-ramblock-id,
> because these two are actually stable.
>
> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster
> ---
> @@ -2495,27 +2508,57 @@
> #
> # Properties for throttle-group objects.
> #
> -# The options starting with x- are aliases for the same key without x- in
> -# the @limits object. As indicated by the x- prefix, this is not a stable
> -# interface and may be removed or changed incompatibly in the future. Use
> -# @limits for a supported stable interface.
> -#
> # @limits: limits to apply for this throttle group
> #
> +# Features:
> +# @unstable: All members starting with x- are aliases for the same key
> +#without x- in the @limits object. This is not a stable
> +#interface and may be removed or changed incompatibly in
> +#the future. Use @limits for a supported stable
> +#interface.
> +#
> # Since: 2.11
> ##
> { 'struct': 'ThrottleGroupProperties',
>'data': { '*limits': 'ThrottleLimits',
> -'*x-iops-total' : 'int', '*x-iops-total-max' : 'int',
> +'*x-iops-total': { 'type': 'int',
> + 'features': [ 'unstable' ] },
This struct has been around since 381bd74 (v6.0); but was not listed
as deprecated at the time. Do we still need it in 6.2, or have we
gone enough release cycles with the saner naming without x- that we
could drop this? But that is a question independent of this patch.
--
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3266
Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
Re: [PATCH 2/9] qapi: Mark unstable QMP parts with feature 'unstable'
John Snow writes: > On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 3:56 AM Markus Armbruster wrote: > >> John Snow writes: >> >> > On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 1:25 AM Markus Armbruster >> wrote: >> > >> >> Add special feature 'unstable' everywhere the name starts with 'x-', >> >> except for InputBarrierProperties member x-origin and >> >> MemoryBackendProperties member x-use-canonical-path-for-ramblock-id, >> >> because these two are actually stable. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster >> >> --- >> >> qapi/block-core.json | 123 +++ >> >> qapi/migration.json | 35 +--- >> >> qapi/misc.json | 6 ++- >> >> qapi/qom.json| 11 ++-- >> >> 4 files changed, 130 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-) >> >> >> >> diff --git a/qapi/block-core.json b/qapi/block-core.json >> >> index 6d3217abb6..ce2c1352cb 100644 >> >> --- a/qapi/block-core.json >> >> +++ b/qapi/block-core.json >> >> @@ -1438,6 +1438,9 @@ >> >> # >> >> # @x-perf: Performance options. (Since 6.0) >> >> # >> >> +# Features: >> >> +# @unstable: Member @x-perf is experimental. >> >> +# >> >> >> > >> > It'd be a lot cooler if we could annotate the unstable member directly >> > instead of confusing it with the syntax that might describe the entire >> > struct/union/command/etc, but ... eh, it's just a doc field, so I'm not >> > gonna press on this. I don't have the energy to get into a doc formatting >> > standard discussion right now, so: sure, why not? >> >> By design, we have a single doc comment block for the entire definition. >> >> When Kevin invented feature flags (merge commit 4747524f9f2), he added >> them just to struct types. He added "feature sections" for documenting >> features. It mirrors the "argument sections" for documenting members. >> Makes sense. >> >> Aside: he neglected to update qapi-code-gen.rst section "Definition >> documentation", and I failed to catch it. I'll make up for it. >> >> Peter and I then added feature flags to the remaining definitions >> (commit 23394b4c39 and 013b4efc9b). Feature sections make sense there, >> too. >> >> I then added them to struct members (commit 84ab008687). Instead of >> doing something fancy for documenting feature flags of members, I simply >> used the existing feature sections. This conflates member features with >> struct features. >> >> > Yeah, that's the part I don't like. If this isn't the first instance of > breaking the seal, though, this is the wrong time for me to comment on it. > Don't worry about it for this series. Okay. >> What could "something fancy" be? All we have for members is "argument >> sections", which are basically a name plus descriptive text. We'd have >> to add structure to that, say nest feature sections into argument >> sections. I have no appetite for that right now. >> >> > (Tangent below, unrelated to acceptance of this series) > > Yeah, I don't have an appetite for it at the moment either. I'll have to > read Marc-Andre's recent sphinx patches and see if I want to do more work > -- I had a bigger prototype a few months back I didn't bring all the way > home, but I am still thinking about reworking our QAPIDoc format. It's ... > well. I don't really want to, but I am not sure how else to bring some of > the features I want home, and I think I need some more time to think > carefully through exactly what I want to do and why. > > I wouldn't mind chatting about it with you sometime soon -- there's a few > things to balance here, such as: > > (1) Reworking the doc format would be an obnoxious amount of churn, ... Yes. But that need not be the end of the argument, it may be the beginning of one. > (2) ...but the Sphinx internals are really not meant to be used the way > we're using them right now, ... Happy to trust you on this one. > (3) ...but I also don't want to write our QAPI docstrings in a way that > *targets* Sphinx. Not that I think we'll be dropping it any time soon, but > it still feels like the wrong idea to tie them so closely together. Maybe. Depends on what we get for it. > I'm hoping there's an opportunity to make the parsing nicer with minimal > changes to the parsing and format, though. It just might require enforcing > a *pinch* more structure. I could see how I feel about per-field > annotations at that point. The doc comment language is the result of a series of pragmatic decisions that got us from semi-accidental comment conventions to where we are now. Each of the decisions made sense at the time. The result is messy to describe and to parse. It's limiting and hard to grow further. >I consider them interesting for things like the > Python SDK where I may want to enable/disable warnings for using deprecated > stuff at the client-level. (e.g., let's say you're using Python SDK 6.2 to > talk to a 6.1 client. Nothing stops you from doing this, but some commands > will simply be rejected by QEMU as it won't know what you're talking about. > Using
Re: [PATCH 2/9] qapi: Mark unstable QMP parts with feature 'unstable'
On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 3:56 AM Markus Armbruster wrote: > John Snow writes: > > > On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 1:25 AM Markus Armbruster > wrote: > > > >> Add special feature 'unstable' everywhere the name starts with 'x-', > >> except for InputBarrierProperties member x-origin and > >> MemoryBackendProperties member x-use-canonical-path-for-ramblock-id, > >> because these two are actually stable. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster > >> --- > >> qapi/block-core.json | 123 +++ > >> qapi/migration.json | 35 +--- > >> qapi/misc.json | 6 ++- > >> qapi/qom.json| 11 ++-- > >> 4 files changed, 130 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/qapi/block-core.json b/qapi/block-core.json > >> index 6d3217abb6..ce2c1352cb 100644 > >> --- a/qapi/block-core.json > >> +++ b/qapi/block-core.json > >> @@ -1438,6 +1438,9 @@ > >> # > >> # @x-perf: Performance options. (Since 6.0) > >> # > >> +# Features: > >> +# @unstable: Member @x-perf is experimental. > >> +# > >> > > > > It'd be a lot cooler if we could annotate the unstable member directly > > instead of confusing it with the syntax that might describe the entire > > struct/union/command/etc, but ... eh, it's just a doc field, so I'm not > > gonna press on this. I don't have the energy to get into a doc formatting > > standard discussion right now, so: sure, why not? > > By design, we have a single doc comment block for the entire definition. > > When Kevin invented feature flags (merge commit 4747524f9f2), he added > them just to struct types. He added "feature sections" for documenting > features. It mirrors the "argument sections" for documenting members. > Makes sense. > > Aside: he neglected to update qapi-code-gen.rst section "Definition > documentation", and I failed to catch it. I'll make up for it. > > Peter and I then added feature flags to the remaining definitions > (commit 23394b4c39 and 013b4efc9b). Feature sections make sense there, > too. > > I then added them to struct members (commit 84ab008687). Instead of > doing something fancy for documenting feature flags of members, I simply > used the existing feature sections. This conflates member features with > struct features. > > Yeah, that's the part I don't like. If this isn't the first instance of breaking the seal, though, this is the wrong time for me to comment on it. Don't worry about it for this series. > What could "something fancy" be? All we have for members is "argument > sections", which are basically a name plus descriptive text. We'd have > to add structure to that, say nest feature sections into argument > sections. I have no appetite for that right now. > > (Tangent below, unrelated to acceptance of this series) Yeah, I don't have an appetite for it at the moment either. I'll have to read Marc-Andre's recent sphinx patches and see if I want to do more work -- I had a bigger prototype a few months back I didn't bring all the way home, but I am still thinking about reworking our QAPIDoc format. It's ... well. I don't really want to, but I am not sure how else to bring some of the features I want home, and I think I need some more time to think carefully through exactly what I want to do and why. I wouldn't mind chatting about it with you sometime soon -- there's a few things to balance here, such as: (1) Reworking the doc format would be an obnoxious amount of churn, ... (2) ...but the Sphinx internals are really not meant to be used the way we're using them right now, ... (3) ...but I also don't want to write our QAPI docstrings in a way that *targets* Sphinx. Not that I think we'll be dropping it any time soon, but it still feels like the wrong idea to tie them so closely together. I'm hoping there's an opportunity to make the parsing nicer with minimal changes to the parsing and format, though. It just might require enforcing a *pinch* more structure. I could see how I feel about per-field annotations at that point. I consider them interesting for things like the Python SDK where I may want to enable/disable warnings for using deprecated stuff at the client-level. (e.g., let's say you're using Python SDK 6.2 to talk to a 6.1 client. Nothing stops you from doing this, but some commands will simply be rejected by QEMU as it won't know what you're talking about. Using deprecated fields or commands to talk to an older client will produce no visible warning from QEMU either, as it wasn't deprecated at that point in time. Still, the client may wish to know that they're asking for future trouble -- so it's a thought that client-side warnings have some play here.) E don't worry about it for now, I guess I'll plow forward a bit with the Sphinx stuff I'm thinking of at some point Soon:tm: and worry about where the immovable objects are when I get there. This is foot-based landmine-detection, and it works 100% of the time. > > > > >> # Note: @on-source-error and
Re: [PATCH 2/9] qapi: Mark unstable QMP parts with feature 'unstable'
John Snow writes:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 1:25 AM Markus Armbruster wrote:
>
>> Add special feature 'unstable' everywhere the name starts with 'x-',
>> except for InputBarrierProperties member x-origin and
>> MemoryBackendProperties member x-use-canonical-path-for-ramblock-id,
>> because these two are actually stable.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster
>> ---
>> qapi/block-core.json | 123 +++
>> qapi/migration.json | 35 +---
>> qapi/misc.json | 6 ++-
>> qapi/qom.json| 11 ++--
>> 4 files changed, 130 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/qapi/block-core.json b/qapi/block-core.json
>> index 6d3217abb6..ce2c1352cb 100644
>> --- a/qapi/block-core.json
>> +++ b/qapi/block-core.json
>> @@ -1438,6 +1438,9 @@
>> #
>> # @x-perf: Performance options. (Since 6.0)
>> #
>> +# Features:
>> +# @unstable: Member @x-perf is experimental.
>> +#
>>
>
> It'd be a lot cooler if we could annotate the unstable member directly
> instead of confusing it with the syntax that might describe the entire
> struct/union/command/etc, but ... eh, it's just a doc field, so I'm not
> gonna press on this. I don't have the energy to get into a doc formatting
> standard discussion right now, so: sure, why not?
By design, we have a single doc comment block for the entire definition.
When Kevin invented feature flags (merge commit 4747524f9f2), he added
them just to struct types. He added "feature sections" for documenting
features. It mirrors the "argument sections" for documenting members.
Makes sense.
Aside: he neglected to update qapi-code-gen.rst section "Definition
documentation", and I failed to catch it. I'll make up for it.
Peter and I then added feature flags to the remaining definitions
(commit 23394b4c39 and 013b4efc9b). Feature sections make sense there,
too.
I then added them to struct members (commit 84ab008687). Instead of
doing something fancy for documenting feature flags of members, I simply
used the existing feature sections. This conflates member features with
struct features.
What could "something fancy" be? All we have for members is "argument
sections", which are basically a name plus descriptive text. We'd have
to add structure to that, say nest feature sections into argument
sections. I have no appetite for that right now.
>
>
>> # Note: @on-source-error and @on-target-error only affect background
>> # I/O. If an error occurs during a guest write request, the
>> device's
>> # rerror/werror actions will be used.
>> @@ -1452,7 +1455,9 @@
>> '*on-source-error': 'BlockdevOnError',
>> '*on-target-error': 'BlockdevOnError',
>> '*auto-finalize': 'bool', '*auto-dismiss': 'bool',
>> -'*filter-node-name': 'str', '*x-perf': 'BackupPerf' } }
>> +'*filter-node-name': 'str',
>> +'*x-perf': { 'type': 'BackupPerf',
>> + 'features': [ 'unstable' ] } } }
>>
>> ##
>> # @DriveBackup:
[...]
> Seems OK, but I didn't audit for false positives/negatives. Trusting your
> judgment here. (It looks like Phil started to audit this in his reply to
> your previous commit, so I'll trust that.)
I'm pretty sure the x- names that don't get feature 'unstable' are
actually stable; see my reply to Kashyap.
I did check git history for each that does get feature 'unstable'.
Double-checking is of course welcome.
> Acked-by: John Snow
Thanks!
Re: [PATCH 2/9] qapi: Mark unstable QMP parts with feature 'unstable'
On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 1:25 AM Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Add special feature 'unstable' everywhere the name starts with 'x-',
> except for InputBarrierProperties member x-origin and
> MemoryBackendProperties member x-use-canonical-path-for-ramblock-id,
> because these two are actually stable.
>
> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster
> ---
> qapi/block-core.json | 123 +++
> qapi/migration.json | 35 +---
> qapi/misc.json | 6 ++-
> qapi/qom.json| 11 ++--
> 4 files changed, 130 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/qapi/block-core.json b/qapi/block-core.json
> index 6d3217abb6..ce2c1352cb 100644
> --- a/qapi/block-core.json
> +++ b/qapi/block-core.json
> @@ -1438,6 +1438,9 @@
> #
> # @x-perf: Performance options. (Since 6.0)
> #
> +# Features:
> +# @unstable: Member @x-perf is experimental.
> +#
>
It'd be a lot cooler if we could annotate the unstable member directly
instead of confusing it with the syntax that might describe the entire
struct/union/command/etc, but ... eh, it's just a doc field, so I'm not
gonna press on this. I don't have the energy to get into a doc formatting
standard discussion right now, so: sure, why not?
> # Note: @on-source-error and @on-target-error only affect background
> # I/O. If an error occurs during a guest write request, the
> device's
> # rerror/werror actions will be used.
> @@ -1452,7 +1455,9 @@
> '*on-source-error': 'BlockdevOnError',
> '*on-target-error': 'BlockdevOnError',
> '*auto-finalize': 'bool', '*auto-dismiss': 'bool',
> -'*filter-node-name': 'str', '*x-perf': 'BackupPerf' } }
> +'*filter-node-name': 'str',
> +'*x-perf': { 'type': 'BackupPerf',
> + 'features': [ 'unstable' ] } } }
>
> ##
> # @DriveBackup:
> @@ -1916,9 +1921,13 @@
> #
> # Get the block graph.
> #
> +# Features:
> +# @unstable: This command is meant for debugging.
> +#
> # Since: 4.0
> ##
> -{ 'command': 'x-debug-query-block-graph', 'returns': 'XDbgBlockGraph' }
> +{ 'command': 'x-debug-query-block-graph', 'returns': 'XDbgBlockGraph',
> + 'features': [ 'unstable' ] }
>
> ##
> # @drive-mirror:
> @@ -2257,6 +2266,9 @@
> #
> # Get bitmap SHA256.
> #
> +# Features:
> +# @unstable: This command is meant for debugging.
> +#
> # Returns: - BlockDirtyBitmapSha256 on success
> # - If @node is not a valid block device, DeviceNotFound
> # - If @name is not found or if hashing has failed, GenericError
> with an
> @@ -2265,7 +2277,8 @@
> # Since: 2.10
> ##
> { 'command': 'x-debug-block-dirty-bitmap-sha256',
> - 'data': 'BlockDirtyBitmap', 'returns': 'BlockDirtyBitmapSha256' }
> + 'data': 'BlockDirtyBitmap', 'returns': 'BlockDirtyBitmapSha256',
> + 'features': [ 'unstable' ] }
>
> ##
> # @blockdev-mirror:
> @@ -2495,27 +2508,57 @@
> #
> # Properties for throttle-group objects.
> #
> -# The options starting with x- are aliases for the same key without x- in
> -# the @limits object. As indicated by the x- prefix, this is not a stable
> -# interface and may be removed or changed incompatibly in the future. Use
> -# @limits for a supported stable interface.
> -#
> # @limits: limits to apply for this throttle group
> #
> +# Features:
> +# @unstable: All members starting with x- are aliases for the same key
> +#without x- in the @limits object. This is not a stable
> +#interface and may be removed or changed incompatibly in
> +#the future. Use @limits for a supported stable
> +#interface.
> +#
> # Since: 2.11
> ##
> { 'struct': 'ThrottleGroupProperties',
>'data': { '*limits': 'ThrottleLimits',
> -'*x-iops-total' : 'int', '*x-iops-total-max' : 'int',
> -'*x-iops-total-max-length' : 'int', '*x-iops-read' : 'int',
> -'*x-iops-read-max' : 'int', '*x-iops-read-max-length' : 'int',
> -'*x-iops-write' : 'int', '*x-iops-write-max' : 'int',
> -'*x-iops-write-max-length' : 'int', '*x-bps-total' : 'int',
> -'*x-bps-total-max' : 'int', '*x-bps-total-max-length' : 'int',
> -'*x-bps-read' : 'int', '*x-bps-read-max' : 'int',
> -'*x-bps-read-max-length' : 'int', '*x-bps-write' : 'int',
> -'*x-bps-write-max' : 'int', '*x-bps-write-max-length' : 'int',
> -'*x-iops-size' : 'int' } }
> +'*x-iops-total': { 'type': 'int',
> + 'features': [ 'unstable' ] },
> +'*x-iops-total-max': { 'type': 'int',
> + 'features': [ 'unstable' ] },
> +'*x-iops-total-max-length': { 'type': 'int',
> + 'features': [ 'unstable' ] },
> +'*x-iops-read': { 'type': 'int',
> + 'features': [ 'unstable' ] },
> +'*x-iops-read-max': { 'type': 'int',
> +
Re: [PATCH 2/9] qapi: Mark unstable QMP parts with feature 'unstable'
Markus Armbruster wrote: > Add special feature 'unstable' everywhere the name starts with 'x-', > except for InputBarrierProperties member x-origin and > MemoryBackendProperties member x-use-canonical-path-for-ramblock-id, > because these two are actually stable. > > Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster Reviewed-by: Juan Quintela
[PATCH 2/9] qapi: Mark unstable QMP parts with feature 'unstable'
Add special feature 'unstable' everywhere the name starts with 'x-',
except for InputBarrierProperties member x-origin and
MemoryBackendProperties member x-use-canonical-path-for-ramblock-id,
because these two are actually stable.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster
---
qapi/block-core.json | 123 +++
qapi/migration.json | 35 +---
qapi/misc.json | 6 ++-
qapi/qom.json| 11 ++--
4 files changed, 130 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-)
diff --git a/qapi/block-core.json b/qapi/block-core.json
index 6d3217abb6..ce2c1352cb 100644
--- a/qapi/block-core.json
+++ b/qapi/block-core.json
@@ -1438,6 +1438,9 @@
#
# @x-perf: Performance options. (Since 6.0)
#
+# Features:
+# @unstable: Member @x-perf is experimental.
+#
# Note: @on-source-error and @on-target-error only affect background
# I/O. If an error occurs during a guest write request, the device's
# rerror/werror actions will be used.
@@ -1452,7 +1455,9 @@
'*on-source-error': 'BlockdevOnError',
'*on-target-error': 'BlockdevOnError',
'*auto-finalize': 'bool', '*auto-dismiss': 'bool',
-'*filter-node-name': 'str', '*x-perf': 'BackupPerf' } }
+'*filter-node-name': 'str',
+'*x-perf': { 'type': 'BackupPerf',
+ 'features': [ 'unstable' ] } } }
##
# @DriveBackup:
@@ -1916,9 +1921,13 @@
#
# Get the block graph.
#
+# Features:
+# @unstable: This command is meant for debugging.
+#
# Since: 4.0
##
-{ 'command': 'x-debug-query-block-graph', 'returns': 'XDbgBlockGraph' }
+{ 'command': 'x-debug-query-block-graph', 'returns': 'XDbgBlockGraph',
+ 'features': [ 'unstable' ] }
##
# @drive-mirror:
@@ -2257,6 +2266,9 @@
#
# Get bitmap SHA256.
#
+# Features:
+# @unstable: This command is meant for debugging.
+#
# Returns: - BlockDirtyBitmapSha256 on success
# - If @node is not a valid block device, DeviceNotFound
# - If @name is not found or if hashing has failed, GenericError with
an
@@ -2265,7 +2277,8 @@
# Since: 2.10
##
{ 'command': 'x-debug-block-dirty-bitmap-sha256',
- 'data': 'BlockDirtyBitmap', 'returns': 'BlockDirtyBitmapSha256' }
+ 'data': 'BlockDirtyBitmap', 'returns': 'BlockDirtyBitmapSha256',
+ 'features': [ 'unstable' ] }
##
# @blockdev-mirror:
@@ -2495,27 +2508,57 @@
#
# Properties for throttle-group objects.
#
-# The options starting with x- are aliases for the same key without x- in
-# the @limits object. As indicated by the x- prefix, this is not a stable
-# interface and may be removed or changed incompatibly in the future. Use
-# @limits for a supported stable interface.
-#
# @limits: limits to apply for this throttle group
#
+# Features:
+# @unstable: All members starting with x- are aliases for the same key
+#without x- in the @limits object. This is not a stable
+#interface and may be removed or changed incompatibly in
+#the future. Use @limits for a supported stable
+#interface.
+#
# Since: 2.11
##
{ 'struct': 'ThrottleGroupProperties',
'data': { '*limits': 'ThrottleLimits',
-'*x-iops-total' : 'int', '*x-iops-total-max' : 'int',
-'*x-iops-total-max-length' : 'int', '*x-iops-read' : 'int',
-'*x-iops-read-max' : 'int', '*x-iops-read-max-length' : 'int',
-'*x-iops-write' : 'int', '*x-iops-write-max' : 'int',
-'*x-iops-write-max-length' : 'int', '*x-bps-total' : 'int',
-'*x-bps-total-max' : 'int', '*x-bps-total-max-length' : 'int',
-'*x-bps-read' : 'int', '*x-bps-read-max' : 'int',
-'*x-bps-read-max-length' : 'int', '*x-bps-write' : 'int',
-'*x-bps-write-max' : 'int', '*x-bps-write-max-length' : 'int',
-'*x-iops-size' : 'int' } }
+'*x-iops-total': { 'type': 'int',
+ 'features': [ 'unstable' ] },
+'*x-iops-total-max': { 'type': 'int',
+ 'features': [ 'unstable' ] },
+'*x-iops-total-max-length': { 'type': 'int',
+ 'features': [ 'unstable' ] },
+'*x-iops-read': { 'type': 'int',
+ 'features': [ 'unstable' ] },
+'*x-iops-read-max': { 'type': 'int',
+ 'features': [ 'unstable' ] },
+'*x-iops-read-max-length': { 'type': 'int',
+ 'features': [ 'unstable' ] },
+'*x-iops-write': { 'type': 'int',
+ 'features': [ 'unstable' ] },
+'*x-iops-write-max': { 'type': 'int',
+ 'features': [ 'unstable' ] },
+'*x-iops-write-max-length': { 'type': 'int',
+ 'features': [ 'unstable' ] },
+'*x-bps-total': { 'type': 'int',
+
