On 5/12/2025 6:54 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Daniel P. Berrangé<berra...@redhat.com> writes:
On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 09:46:30AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2025 at 11:04, Thomas Huth<th...@redhat.com> wrote:
Thanks for your clarifications, Zhao! But I think this shows again the
problem that we have hit a couple of times in the past already: Properties
are currently used for both, config knobs for the users and internal
switches for configuration of the machine. We lack a proper way to say "this
property is usable for the user" and "this property is meant for internal
configuration only".
I wonder whether we could maybe come up with a naming scheme to better
distinguish the two sets, e.g. by using a prefix similar to the "x-" prefix
for experimental properties? We could e.g. say that all properties starting
with a "q-" are meant for QEMU-internal configuration only or something
similar (and maybe even hide those from the default help output when running
"-device xyz,help" ?)? Anybody any opinions or better ideas on this?
I think a q-prefix is potentially a bit clunky unless we also have
infrastructure to say eg DEFINE_INTERNAL_PROP_BOOL("foo", ...)
and have it auto-add the prefix, and to have the C APIs for
setting properties search for both "foo" and "q-foo" so you
don't have to write qdev_prop_set_bit(dev, "q-foo", ...).
If we make intent explicit with DEFINE_INTERNAL_PROP_FOO(), is repeating
intent in the name useful?
+1 for DEFINE_INTERNAL_PROP_FOO(). I have the same thought.
We need something in code to restrict the *internal* property really
internal, i.e., not user settable. What the name of the property is
doesn't matter.
