Re: [Qemu-devel] Can we improve virtio data structures with QOM?

[Markus Armbruster]

Anthony Liguori <address@hidden> writes:

> On 06/01/2012 05:25 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Anthony Liguori<address@hidden>  writes:
>>
>>> On 06/01/2012 12:48 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>>> Anthony Liguori<address@hidden>   writes:
>>>>
>>>> [On how to model virtio devices in QOM:]
>>>>> Basically, it should look like:
>>>>>
>>>>> VirtioPCIDevice is-a PCIDevice
>>>>>
>>>>> VirtioPCIDevice has-a link<VirtioDevice>
>>>>
>>>> Could you explain why this is link<>   and not child<>?
>>>
>>> So you can do:
>>>
>>> qemu -device virtio-pci,id=foo,vdev=bar -device virtio-blk,id=bar,bus=foo
>>
>> This lets folks specify both directions of the virtio-pci<->  virtio-blk
>> connection independently.  What if $dev->bus->vdev != $dev, i.e. the
>> backlink doesn't point back?
>
> Then the user did something silly.
>
> If you're really asking, should we expect a user to use a command line
> like this?  Absolutely not!
>
> A user should use something like -drive file=foo.img,if=virtio

No, a user should use what solves his problem nicely.

Most of the time, the problem is simple.  I quite agree we should
provide simple ways to solve the known simple problems.

Occasionally, you run into a non-simple problem, and then you'll really
appreciate a discoverable bridge from the simple way to the general way.
You'll also appreciate when the general way still satisfies basic
usability criteria.

A mandatory parameter that must have the one right value, or else things
break, doesn't satisfy.

"Experts/tools only" is no excuse for shoddy interfaces.

-drive isn't such a good example for "simple"; it's a bloody mess, in my
opinion.

> Heck, I still think we should do -vda foo.img.
>
>> Easiest way to avoid that is to deny access to the backlink, and set it
>> automatically instead.  Wouldn't be surprised if such bi-directional
>> links turned out to be a pretty common pattern.
>
> Most likely they will.  But I don't think users should be setting any
> links in the first place.

Real tools aren't built around ideas on what users shouldn't be doing
with them.

>> In qdev, we've always called the property naming the parent "bus",
>> because it's always been a qbus.  Doesn't make sense here: the property
>> refers to a device, not a bus.  Should we call it something else?
>
> Actually, in qdev it's called parent_bus.

Still got that bogus "bus" in there :)

>>> The alternative would be:
>>>
>>> qemu -device virtio-pci,id=foo,child_type=virtio-blk
>>>
>>> But that feels ugly to me.  If you want to have a variable type of
>>> device, a link is the right tool.
>>
>> Okay, that's a general rule (I was hoping you'd state one).  Do we have
>> a place for such rules, or do we expect people to learn them by osmosis?
>
> I actually just did a tutorial session out here walking through how to
> write device emulation from scratch.  I would thinking of making a QOM
> Style Guide based on that.

That should be really useful.

>                             I'm pretty short on free time for the next
> week but I'll try to queue it up.  If anyone wants to take a first
> pass, I'd happily review it and contribute.
>
>>> BTW, I make no mention of BusState here.  That's intentional.  There's
>>> no need to involve buses IMHO.
>>
>> I never liked qbus anyway.
>
> qbus never liked any of us too FWIW.  It was a real jerk that way.

Heh.