Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> writes: > On 04/25/18 21:12, Eric Blake wrote: >> On 04/25/2018 08:20 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >> >>> ... >>> >>> and people would ask themselves ever after, "are there some common >>> fields in there that we could extract ... hmmm, @props and @arch, okay, >>> maybe, maybe not, grey area". Let's do it now and save them the thinking. >> >> No, CpuInfo is slated for death in the next year or so; per commit >> ff9a9156.
Good catch, I missed it. >> Once it disappears (in 2.14 or 2.15?), we will ONLY have >> CpuInfoFast (although we might rename it at that time, as the name of >> QMP structs is not part of the introspection interface). >> >> So, my personal inclination is to just live with the mindless >> near-duplication until the deprecation period ends, rather than wasting >> cycles refactoring things just to refactor it back out when removing the >> dead code later. >> > > This is an important update; thank you for it. Because, it tells me that > we might not need to add @target to CpuInfo at all. Why *extend* an > interface that is deprecated to the point that we're reluctant even to > *refactor* it? > > (BTW, I had noticed the deprecation note in the schema source code, from > what you've now identified as commit ff9a9156; I didn't know what it > meant -- I didn't know it carried a removal sentence.) No need to enhance it even without a removal sentence. > The consequence is that I could drop the painful modifications for > qmp_query_cpus() altogether, and just keep the simple ones for > qmp_query_cpus_fast(). > > Markus, does that work for you? Forget about @CpuInfo for good? Absolutely.
