On 10/03/2017 07:47 AM, Jan Dakinevich wrote: > The command is intended for gathering virtio information such as status, > feature bits, negotiation status. It is convenient and useful for debug > purpose. > > The commands returns generic virtio information for virtio such as > common feature names and status bits names and information for all > attached to current machine devices. > > To retrieve names of device-specific features `get_feature_name' > callback in VirtioDeviceClass also was introduced. > > Cc: Denis V. Lunev <d...@virtuozzo.com> > Signed-off-by: Jan Dakinevich <jan.dakinev...@virtuozzo.com> > --- > hw/block/virtio-blk.c | 21 +++++++++ > hw/char/virtio-serial-bus.c | 15 +++++++ > hw/display/virtio-gpu.c | 13 ++++++ > hw/net/virtio-net.c | 35 +++++++++++++++ > hw/scsi/virtio-scsi.c | 16 +++++++ > hw/virtio/Makefile.objs | 2 + > hw/virtio/virtio-balloon.c | 15 +++++++ > hw/virtio/virtio-stub.c | 9 ++++ > hw/virtio/virtio.c | 101 > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > include/hw/virtio/virtio.h | 2 + > qapi-schema.json | 1 + > qapi/virtio.json | 94 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 12 files changed, 324 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 hw/virtio/virtio-stub.c > create mode 100644 qapi/virtio.json
This creates a new .json file, but does not touch MAINTAINERS. Our idea in splitting the .json files was to make it easier for each sub-file that needs a specific maintainer in addition to the overall *.json line for QAPI maintainers, so this may deserve a MAINTAINERS entry. > +++ b/qapi/virtio.json > @@ -0,0 +1,94 @@ > +# -*- Mode: Python -*- > +# > + > +## > +# = Virtio devices > +## > + > +{ 'include': 'common.json' } > + > +## > +# @VirtioInfoBit: > +# > +# Named virtio bit > +# > +# @bit: bit number > +# > +# @name: bit name > +# > +# Since: 2.11.0 > +# > +## > +{ > + 'struct': 'VirtioInfoBit', > + 'data': { > + 'bit': 'uint64', Why is this a 64-bit value? Are the values 0-63, or are they 1, 2, 4, 8, ...? The documentation on 'bit number' is rather sparse. > + 'name': 'str' Wouldn't an enum type be better than an open-ended string? > + } > +} > + > +## > +# @VirtioInfoDevice: > +# > +# Information about specific virtio device > +# > +# @qom_path: QOM path of the device Please make this 'qom-path' - new interfaces should prefer '-' over '_'. > +# > +# @feature-names: names of device-specific features > +# > +# @host-features: bitmask of features, provided by devices > +# > +# @guest-features: bitmask of features, acknowledged by guest > +# > +# @status: virtio device status bitmask > +# > +# Since: 2.11.0 > +# > +## > +{ > + 'struct': 'VirtioInfoDevice', > + 'data': { > + 'qom_path': 'str', > + 'feature-names': ['VirtioInfoBit'], > + 'host-features': 'uint64', > + 'guest-features': 'uint64', > + 'status': 'uint64' I'm wondering if this is the best representation (where the caller has to parse the integer and then lookup in feature-names what each bit of the integer represents). But I'm not sure I have anything better off the top of my head. > + } > +} > + > +## > +# @VirtioInfo: > +# > +# Information about virtio devices > +# > +# @feature-names: names of common virtio features > +# > +# @status-names: names of bits which represents virtio device status > +# > +# @devices: list of per-device virtio information > +# > +# Since: 2.11.0 > +# > +## > +{ > + 'struct': 'VirtioInfo', > + 'data': { > + 'feature-names': ['VirtioInfoBit'], Why is feature-names listed at two different nestings of the return value? > + 'status-names': ['VirtioInfoBit'], > + 'devices': ['VirtioInfoDevice'] > + } > +} > + > + > +## > +# @query-virtio: > +# > +# Returns generic and per-device virtio information > +# > +# Since: 2.11.0 > +# > +## > +{ > + 'command': 'query-virtio', > + 'returns': 'VirtioInfo' > +} > -- Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3266 Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature