Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> writes: > It's time to expose QMP 'netdev_add' through introspection, and > to add boxed commands/events so that we can drastically reduce > the number of C parameters needed to implement a command that > matches a large QAPI type. > > Prerequistes: > Markus' qapi-next branch (weak; series also applies on master) > > available as a tag at: > git fetch git://repo.or.cz/qemu/ericb.git qapi-cleanupv9f > or as part of my qapi branch: > git fetch git://repo.or.cz/qemu/ericb.git qapi > > v8 was here: > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2016-07/msg00302.html > > Since then, I've addressed Markus' comments: > - s/box/boxed/ > - fix a useless Python override of c_name() > - comment and formatting tweaks > - defer event collision prevention until later; for 2.7, we are > focusing on the bare minimum needed to take advantage of boxing > - implement a promised followup that allows netdev_add to still > parse strings the way it did with QemuOpts (thanks Dan for starting > that effort) > > The diffstat from v8 looks big, but a lot of it is mechanical > due to the spelling change. It's late at night, and we're close > to hard freeze, so to maximize review time I'm posting now; if I > weren't feeling quite as rushed, I might would have swapped the > order of 14 vs. 15-17 to avoid even a temporary behavior change > in netdev_add. On the other hand, 14 has had review, while 15-17 > are effectively new, and it is feasible that we may be comfortable > enough with the new type-safety constraints of 14 to not want > to bother with 15-17 loosening things back up, given that we are > already in soft freeze.
PATCH 01-13 with the few overlooked instanced of 'box' corrected: Reviewed-by: Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> PATCH 14-17 need careful consideration. It's very late in the cycle, which means there's little time to correct mistakes before they become ABI. Risks upsetting the release with last minute corrections. The safest option is to punt to the next cycle. Would be a shame, though. I need to read your discussion of the backward compatibility patches, and the patches themselves, carefully.