First of all, my sincere apologies for the delayed review. The patch series needs a rebase. But let me review it first.
Dinah Baum <dinahbaum...@gmail.com> writes: > Moved architecture agnostic data types to their own > file to avoid "attempt to use poisoned TARGET_*" > error that results when including qapi header > with commands that aren't defined for all architectures. > Required to implement enabling `query-cpu-model-expansion` > on all architectures > > Signed-off-by: Dinah Baum <dinahbaum...@gmail.com> > Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@linaro.org> > --- > MAINTAINERS | 1 + > qapi/machine-target-common.json | 79 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > qapi/machine-target.json | 73 +----------------------------- > qapi/meson.build | 1 + > 4 files changed, 82 insertions(+), 72 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 qapi/machine-target-common.json Do we really want to create qapi/machine-target-common.json? Before we can answer this, I think I should explain how we use QAPI modules so far. You already know about target-independent vs. target-dependent code. In target-dependent code, a multitude of additional macros are available, such as TARGET_S390X, TARGET_I386, TARGET_ARM, ... We poison them to prevent accidental use in target-independent code. Since target-dependent code needs to be compiled per target, we try to keep as much code as we can target-independent. QAPI-generated code is target-independent except for code generated for QAPI modules whose name ends with "-target". Yes, that's a bit of a hack. See qapi/meson.build. When a subsystem needs QAPI schema stuff, we generally put it into its own module. For instance, the PCI subsystem's QAPI schema is in the pci module (qapi/pci.json). See MAINTAINERS for more. Most subsystems' QAPI schema is entirely target-independent. If a subsystem needs some target-dependence in its schema, we split the QAPI module into a target-dependent and a target-independent part. We have two such pairs: misc and misc-target, machine and machine-target. Can we stick to this convention? I.e. move to existing machine.json instead to new machine-target-common.json. Let's have a closer look. This patch moves a few types from (machine-dependent) machine-target.json to new (and machine-independent) machine-target-common.json. The next patch moves another type and a command after removing their machine-dependence. After both moves, machine-target.json needs to include machine-target-common.json for CpuModelInfo and CpuModelCompareResult. Aside: the latter is only ever used in machine-target.json. We could keep it there. If we move to machine.json instead, then machine-target.json needs to include that. Would that work? If not: I think the name machine-target-common.json is unfortunate, because it kind of suggests machine-dependence. [...]
