> -----Original Message-----
> From: Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2021 4:01 PM
> To: Zhang, Chen <chen.zh...@intel.com>
> Cc: Lukas Straub <lukasstra...@web.de>; Li Zhijian
> <lizhij...@cn.fujitsu.com>; Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com>; qemu-
> dev <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Dr. David Alan Gilbert
> <dgilb...@redhat.com>; Zhang Chen <zhangc...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 3/7] qapi/net: Add new QMP command for COLO
> passthrough
>
> "Zhang, Chen" <chen.zh...@intel.com> writes:
>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Qemu-devel <qemu-devel-
> >> bounces+chen.zhang=intel....@nongnu.org> On Behalf Of Markus
> >> Armbruster
> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 5:58 PM
> >> To: Zhang, Chen <chen.zh...@intel.com>
> >> Cc: Lukas Straub <lukasstra...@web.de>; Li Zhijian
> >> <lizhij...@cn.fujitsu.com>; Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com>; qemu-
> >> dev <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Dr. David Alan Gilbert
> >> <dgilb...@redhat.com>; Zhang Chen <zhangc...@gmail.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 3/7] qapi/net: Add new QMP command for COLO
> >> passthrough
> >>
> >> "Zhang, Chen" <chen.zh...@intel.com> writes:
> >>
> >> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> >> From: Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com>
> >> [...]
> >> >> Now let's look at colo-passthrough-del. I figure it is for
> >> >> deleting the kind of things colo-passthrough-add adds.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Yes.
> >> >
> >> >> What exactly is deleted? The thing created with the exact same
> >> arguments?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Delete the rule from the module's private bypass list.
> >> > When user input a rule, the colo-passthrough-del will find the
> >> > specific module by the object ID, Then delete the rule.
> >> >
> >> >> This would be unusual. Commonly, FOO-add and FOO-del both take a
> >> >> string ID argument. The FOO created by FOO-add remembers its ID,
> >> >> and FOO-del deletes by ID.
> >> >
> >> > The ID not for rules itself, it just logged the modules(ID tagged)
> >> > affected by
> >> the rule.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure I understand.
> >>
> >> If you're pointing out that existing colo-passthrough-del parameter
> >> @id is not suitable for use as unique rule ID: you can always add
> >> another parameter that is suitable.
> >
> > Sorry to missed this mail.
> >
> > For example:
> > The VM running with filter-mirror(object id==0),
> > filter-redirector(object id==1) and colo-compare(object id==2), We use
> colo-passthrough-add/del to add/del a rule with a ID, if the ID==2, the rule
> just affect to colo-compare.
> > The filter-mirror and filter-redirector feel nothing after the add/del.
>
> I think you're trying to explain existing parameter @id. The point I was
> trying
> to make is unrelated to this parameter, except by name collision.
>
> My point is: our existing "delete" operations select the object to be deleted
> by some unique name that is assigned by the "add" operation.
> The unique name is a property of the object. The property name is often,
> but not always "id".
>
> Examples:
>
> device_add argument "id" sets the device's unique name.
> device_del argument "id" selects the device to delete by its name.
>
> blockdev-add argument "node-name" sets the block backend device's
> unique name.
> blockdev-del argument "node-name" selects the block backend device
> to delete by its name.
>
> Is there any particular reason why deletion of your kind of object can't work
> the same way?
Current command can work in this way, It seems that name "ID" can be
misunderstood.
The id=object0 is OK here. I will change the "id" to "object-name".
Thank you for clear the comments.
Thanks
Chen
