On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 06:09:22PM +0800, Chunyan Liu wrote: > 2014-03-21 8:07 GMT+08:00 Leandro Dorileo <l...@dorileo.org>: > > > Hi Chunyan, > > > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 03:31:36PM +0800, Chunyan Liu wrote: > > > This patch series is to replace QEMUOptionParameter with QemuOpts, so > > that only > > > one Qemu Option structure is kept in QEMU code. > > > > > > > > > Last night I took some time do take a deeper look at you series and the > > required > > effort to do the QemuOptionParameter -> QemuOpts migration. > > > > I think you've over complicated the things, I understand you tried to keep > > your > > serie's bisectability (?), but the final result was something really hard > > to > > review and to integrate as well. The overall approach wasn't even > > resolving the > > bisectability problem since it breaks the tree until the last commit. > > Moreover, > > in the path of getting things ready you created new problems and their > > respective > > fixes, what we really don't need to. > > > > In this regards you could have kept things as simple as possible and > > submitted > > the patches in a "natural way", even if they were breaking the build > > between each > > patch, you could get all the required maintainer's Reviewed-by + Tested-by > > + > > Signed-off-by and so on for each individual patch and when it was time to > > integrate get squashed the needed patches. > > > > Well, if breaking the build could be allowed between each patch, then it > could be > much cleaner. Indeed there are lots of code just for build and function > unbroken > between each patch. I'm inclined to listen to more voice. If all agree to > this method, > it's OK to me.
The thing is the balance between complexity and the change size. Do we really want to avoid a small patch - doing all the change - and increase the whole thing complexity? I don't see a great benefit on that :) > > > > > > I mean, add N patches introducing new required QemuOpts API's, 1 patch > > migrating > > the block upper layer (block.c, block.h, etc), one patch for each block > > driver > > (i.e ssh.c, qcow.c, qcow2.c, etc), one patch for qemu-img.c and finally a > > last > > patch removing the QEMUOptionParamer itself. When time comes to integrate > > your > > series the patches changing the block layer + patches changing the block > > drivers + > > patches changing qemu-img.c could be squashed adding all the collected > > Reviewed-by > > to this single squashed patch. > > > > As I said, last night I took a deeper look at the problem and, understood > > most > > of changes weren't required to do the job. We don't need an adaptation > > layer between > > QemuOptionParameter and QemuOpts, we don't need to add new opts accessors > > (like > > those qemu_opt_*_del() functions), all we need is 1) that > > qemu_opts_append() function > > so we can merge the protocol and drivers options in a single QemuOptList > > and > > 2) the default value support. All we need is already present in the > > QemuOpts APIs. > > > > qemu_opt_*_del functions are needed. Each driver handles options they > expected then > delete, left options passed to 2nd driver and let it handle. Like qcow2 > create, first, qcow2 > driver handle, then raw driver handle. Not true, the only place you need to allocate QemuOpts or QemuOptsList is on qemu-img.c and block.c, if they're doing so they should free it, not the lower lavels. The block drivers should just use it, unless they do allocate anything themselves. > > But as you point, some changes are not required for this job, I've omitted > in my new patch > series, like: qemu_opt_set, NULL check in qemu_opt_get and qemu_opt_find, > assert() > update in qemu_opt_get. > Ok. -- Leandro Dorileo > > > With that simpler approach in mind I ended up putting my hands in the > > source code > > trying to see how feasible it is, and turns out I came up with a full > > solution. I'm > > sending the job's resulting series to the mailing list so I can show you > > what > > I mean and have some more room for discussion. It doesn't mean I want to > > overlap > > you work, I just needed to have a little more input on that. > > > > No matter. I'm OK to follow a more acceptable way :) > > > > > > Regards.... > > > > -- > > Leandro Dorileo > > > >
