On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 07:58:30AM -0800, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 06:31:35AM -0800, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 2:55 AM, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > Il 07/02/2014 11:16, Eduardo Habkost ha scritto: > >> > > >> >> You are not alone. I remember we spent lots of time trying to convince > >> >> Anthony to allow global properties and compat_props affect dynamic > >> >> properties not just static properties, and static properties were a big > >> >> deal due to reasons I didn't understand completely. Now I am hearing the > >> >> opposite message, and I don't understand the reasons for the change of > >> >> plans. I am confused. > >> > > >> > > >> > Picture me confused as well, but at the same I think I understand the > >> > reasons for the change of plans. > >> > >> There's no real convincing. It's just a question of code. > > > > I am sure there's a lot of convincing involved, even after the code is > > written (in this case, 15 months after the code was written). > > N.B. the code you refer to doesn't "make global propeties and > compat_props affect dynamic properties." It converts CPU properties > to static properties which I'm pretty sure I said many times is a > perfectly reasonable thing to do. Exactly. Have you read the rest of this thread? > > >> There are > >> no defaults in classes for dynamic properties to modify. compat_props > >> are a nice mechanism, making them work for all properties is a > >> reasonable thing to do. > > > > That's exactly the opposite of what you said before[1]. But that isn't > > supposed to be a problem, I understand there may be change of plans (we > > should be able to change our minds). > > I think you're confusing a few things. You cannot make dynamic > properties work with globals today. Globals change class default > values and there are no class defaults for dynamic properties.[*] They work today. Not that people _should_ use -global with them, but it works. All we really needed (before this series) was to make compat_props and -cpu be able to affect the dynamic properties. > > There's a perfectly valid discussion to have about whether we should > even have dynamic properties. It's certainly been a long time since > they were introduced and they haven't made their way into all that > many devices so it's reasonable to say that perhaps we'd be better off > without them. I would not object to a patch series that moved > properties to classes entirely provided it removed existing uses of > dynamic properties and didn't just introduce yet another mechanism. That sounds like the opposite of what I have been reading in this thread. Now I am even more confused. > > But compat properties as a concept could be made to work with dynamic > properties. They would have to be evaluated after instance init. > There's quite a few places they would end up touching I suspect. They already work. -- Eduardo -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list