On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 04:46:36PM -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote: > > > On 05/21/2018 03:14 PM, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > > Issue#2: the flag isn't a property of the target. Due to -no-acpi, it's > > > not even a property of the machine type. If it was, query-machines > > > would be the natural owner of the flag. > > > > > > Perhaps query-machines is still the proper owner. The value of > > > wakeup-suspend-support would have to depend on -no-acpi for the machine > > > types that honor it. Not ideal; I'd prefer MachineInfo to be static. > > > Tolerable? I guess that's also a libvirt question. > > It depends when libvirt is going to query it. Is it OK to only > > query it after the VM is already up and running? If it is, then > > we can simply expose it as a read-only property of the machine > > object. > > > > Or, if we don't want to rely on qom-get as a stable API, we can > > add a new query command (query-machine? query-power-management?) > > > In the first version this logic was included in a new query command called > "query-wakeup-from-suspend-support": > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-12/msg00889.html > > In that review it was suggested that this logic could be a flag in either > query-target > or query-machines API. Before sending the v2 I sent the following comment: > > "After investigating, I think that it's simpler to hook the wakeup support > info into > TargetInfo than MachineInfo, given that the detection I'm using for this new > property > is based on the current runtime state. Hooking into MachineInfo would > require to > change the MachineClass to add a new property, then setting it up for the > machines > that have the wakeup support (only x86 so far). Definitely doable, but if we > don't > have any favorites between MachineInfo and TargetInfo I'd rather pick the > simpler > route. > > So, if no one objects, I'll rework this series by putting the logic inside > query-target > instead of a new API." Apologies for not noticing this series months ago. :( > > Since no objection was made back then, this logic was put into query-target > starting > in v2. Still, I don't have any favorites though: query-target looks ok, > query-machine > looks ok and a new API looks ok too. It's all about what makes (more) sense > in the > management level, I think. I understand the original objection from Eric: having to add a new command for every runtime flag we want to expose to the user looks wrong to me. However, extending query-machines and query-target looks wrong too, however. query-target looks wrong because this not a property of the target. query-machines is wrong because this is not a static property of the machine-type, but of the running machine instance. Can we have a new query command that could be an obvious container for simple machine capabilities that are not static? A name like "query-machine" would be generic enough for that, I guess. Markus, Eric, what do you think? -- Eduardo -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
