Peter Xu <[email protected]> writes:

> This stats is only about RAM, make it accurate.  This paves way for
> statistics for all devices.
>
> Thanks to Markus, who pointed out that docs/devel/qapi-code-gen.rst has a
> section "Compatibility considerations" stated:
>
>     Since type names are not visible in the Client JSON Protocol, types
>     may be freely renamed.  Even certain refactorings are invisible, such
>     as splitting members from one type into a common base type.
>
> Hence this change is not ABI violation according to the document.
>
> While at it, touch up the lines to make it read better, correct the
> restriction on migration status being 'active' or 'completed': over time we
> grew too many new status that will also report "ram" section.
>
> Cc: Daniel P. BerrangĂ© <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Reviewed-by: Markus Armbruster <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Juraj Marcin <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Michal Privoznik <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <[email protected]>
> ---
>  docs/about/removed-features.rst |  2 +-
>  qapi/migration.json             | 10 +++++-----
>  migration/migration-stats.h     |  2 +-
>  3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/docs/about/removed-features.rst b/docs/about/removed-features.rst
> index e75db08410..626162022a 100644
> --- a/docs/about/removed-features.rst
> +++ b/docs/about/removed-features.rst
> @@ -699,7 +699,7 @@ was superseded by ``sections``.
>  ``query-migrate`` return value member ``skipped`` (removed in 9.1)
>  ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
>  
> -Member ``skipped`` of the ``MigrationStats`` struct hasn't been used
> +Member ``skipped`` of the ``MigrationRAMStats`` struct hasn't been used
>  for more than 10 years. Removed with no replacement.
>  
>  ``migrate`` command option ``inc`` (removed in 9.1)

docs/about/removed-features.rst and docs/about/deprecated.rst are meant
for consumers of external interfaces.  Since QAPI types are not relevant
there, I try to avoid mentioning them.

Your patch is just fine as is.

"Member ``skipped`` of the return value" would also be fine.

[...]

Reviewed-by: Markus Armbruster <[email protected]>

Reply via email to