On 07/17/13 14:24, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 07/17/2013 04:35 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>
>>> +# @cpus: #optional VCPUs belong to this node
>>> +#
>>> +# Since: 1.6
>>> +##
>>> +{ 'type': 'NumaNodeOptions',
>>> + 'data': {
>>> + '*nodeid': 'int',
>>> + '*cpus': 'str' }}
>>> +
>>
>> Should we document the format for "cpus" here too?
>
> Not only that, but is this even the right representation? The fact that
> you are requiring the receiver to further parse this string means you
> probably represented it at the wrong level in JSON. That is, a JSON
> string "1,2,4" requires post-processing to turn it into 3 processor ids,
> while a JSON array [1, 2, 4] does not, so you should probably consider
> '*cpus':['int'] as your preferred datatype.
opts-visitor can handle lists of simple scalar types. Ie. it can do
-numa node,nodeid=3,cpus=3-4,cpus=9-10. It can't save the parsing of
intervals (eg. 3-4).
This is of course not to say that the interface should be limited by
what opts-visitor can do; just that opts-visitor may not be appropriate
for (or solve completely the needs of) very intricate options.
Laszlo
