On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 11:49:50AM +0200, Michael Mueller wrote: > On Tue, 5 May 2015 10:11:15 -0300 > Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 04:53:17PM +0200, Michael Mueller wrote: > > > The QMP command query-cpus now additionally displays a model name and > > > the backing accelerator. Both are omitted if the model name is not > > > initialized. > > > > > > request: > > > { "execute" : "query-cpus" } > > > > > > answer: > > > { { "current": true, > > > "CPU": 0, > > > "model": "2827-ga2", > > > "halted": false, > > > "accel": "kvm", > > > "thread_id": 31917 > > > }, ... } > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Michael Mueller <m...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > Acked-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntrae...@de.ibm.com> > > > > With the new qom-path field I submitted yesterday, this can be provided > > as QOM properties through qom-get. > > Is that really a good idea to make the object representation part of the ABI.
I believe that's the whole point of QOM properties. > I guess there is a related discussion already somewhere. I mean not just > adding > the qom-path field, I saw that suggested patch, I mean the approach to expose > the > objects themselves... > > I will try your patch of course as well... Yes, there are two approaches we are considering to allow clients to find the CPU QOM objects (qom-path in query-cpus, and links/aliases in /machine/cpus). But whatever approach we use, if clients can find the CPU objects in the QOM tree, you won't need the new fields in query-cpus and the info can be provided using qom-get. -- Eduardo