On 2/6/23 13:49, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 01:41:44PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 01/02/2023 14.20, Pierre Morel wrote:
S390x provides two more topology containers above the sockets,
books and drawers.
Let's add these CPU attributes to the QAPI command query-cpu-fast.
Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
qapi/machine.json | 13 ++++++++++---
hw/core/machine-qmp-cmds.c | 2 ++
2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/qapi/machine.json b/qapi/machine.json
index 3036117059..e36c39e258 100644
--- a/qapi/machine.json
+++ b/qapi/machine.json
@@ -53,11 +53,18 @@
#
# Additional information about a virtual S390 CPU
#
-# @cpu-state: the virtual CPU's state
+# @cpu-state: the virtual CPU's state (since 2.12)
+# @dedicated: the virtual CPU's dedication (since 8.0)
+# @polarity: the virtual CPU's polarity (since 8.0)
#
# Since: 2.12
##
-{ 'struct': 'CpuInfoS390', 'data': { 'cpu-state': 'CpuS390State' } }
+{ 'struct': 'CpuInfoS390',
+ 'data': { 'cpu-state': 'CpuS390State',
+ 'dedicated': 'bool',
+ 'polarity': 'int'
I think it would also be better to mark the new fields as optional and only
return them if the guest has the topology enabled, to avoid confusing
clients that were written before this change.
FWIW, I would say that the general expectation of QMP clients is that
they must *always* expect new fields to appear in dicts that are
returned in QMP replies. We add new fields at will on a frequent basis.
So personally I'd keep life simple and unconditionally report the new
fields.
With regards,
Daniel
OK, thanks both of you.
I will then keep the simple way.
Regards,
Pierre
--
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen
