Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com> writes: > On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 13:54:32 +1100 > David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote: [...] >> This is why Eduardo suggested - and I agreed - that it's probably >> better to implement the "1st layer" as an internal structure/interface >> only, and implement the 2nd layer on top of that. When/if we need to >> we can revisit a user-accessible interface to the 1st layer. > We are going around QOM based CPU introspecting interface for > years now and that's exactly what 2nd layer is, just another > implementation. I've just lost hope in this approach. > > What I'm suggesting in this RFC is to forget controversial > QOM approach for now and use -device/device_add + QMP introspection, > i.e. completely split interface from how boards internally implement > CPU hotplug.
QMP introspection doesn't tell you anything about device_add now. Covering device_add is hard, because introspection data is fixed at compile-time, but device models are collected only at run time. Worse, non-qdev QOM properties are buried in code, which you have to run to find them. See also my slide 39 of my KVM Form 2015 presentation http://events.linuxfoundation.org/sites/events/files/slides/armbru-qemu-introspection.pdf But perhaps you means something else.
