Hi Daniel, On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 10:03:02PM +0800, Zhao Liu wrote: > Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 22:03:02 +0800 > From: Zhao Liu <zhao1.liu@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] qapi/qom: Introduce smp-cache object > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 01:47:16PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrang? wrote: > > Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 13:47:16 +0100 > > From: "Daniel P. Berrang?" <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] qapi/qom: Introduce smp-cache object > > > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 01:35:17PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: > > > Zhao Liu <zhao1.liu@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > > > Hi Markus, > > > >> SmpCachesProperties and SmpCacheProperties would put the singular > > > >> vs. plural where it belongs. Sounds a bit awkward to me, though. > > > >> Naming is hard. > > > > > > > > For SmpCachesProperties, it's easy to overlook the first "s". > > > > > > > >> Other ideas, anybody? > > > > > > > > Maybe SmpCacheOptions or SmpCachesPropertyWrapper? > > > > > > I wonder why we have a single QOM object to configure all caches, and > > > not one QOM object per cache. > > > > Previous versions of this series were augmenting the existing > > -smp command line. > > Ah, yes, since -smp, as a sugar option of -machine, doesn't support > JSON. In -smp, we need to use keyval's style to configure as: > > -smp caches.0.name=l1i,caches.0.topo=core > > I think JSON is the more elegant way to go, so I chose -object. I may have to retract this assertion considering more issues, I could fall back to -smp and support it in keyval format, I think it's also ok for me if you also like keyval format, sorry for my repetition, we can discuss this in this thread: https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/20240704031603.1744546-1-zhao1.liu@xxxxxxxxx/T/#m8adba8ba14ebac0c9935fbf45983cc71e53ccf45 Thanks, Zhao
