Markus Armbruster wrote: > fan <nifan....@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 03:09:52PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: > >> nifan....@gmail.com writes: > >> > >> > From: Fan Ni <fan...@samsung.com> > >> > > >> > Since fabric manager emulation is not supported yet, the change > >> > implements > >> > the functions to add/release dynamic capacity extents as QMP interfaces. > >> > >> Will fabric manager emulation obsolete these commands? > > > > If in the future, fabric manager emulation supports commands for dynamic > > capacity > > extent add/release, it is possible we do not need the commands. > > But it seems not to happen soon, we need the qmp commands for the > > end-to-end test with kernel DCD support. > > I asked because if the commands are temporary testing aids, they should > probably be declared unstable. Even if they are permanent testing aids, > unstable might be the right choice. This is for the CXL maintainers to > decide. > > What does "unstable" mean? docs/devel/qapi-code-gen.rst: "Interfaces so > marked may be withdrawn or changed incompatibly in future releases." > > Management applications need stable interfaces. Libvirt developers > generally refuse to touch anything in QMP that's declared unstable. > > Human users and their ad hoc scripts appreciate stability, but they > don't need it nearly as much as management applications do. > > A stability promise increases the maintenance burden. By how much is > unclear. In other words, by promising stability, the maintainers take > on risk. Are the CXL maintainers happy to accept the risk here? >
Ah... All great points. Outside of CXL development I don't think there is a strong need for them to be stable. I would like to see more than ad hoc scripts use them though. So I don't think they are going to be changed without some thought though. Ira [snip]
