Re: [libvirt] [PATCH v3 00/16] virObject adjustments for common object

On 07/25/2017 05:29 AM, Pavel Hrdina wrote: First off - thanks for taking the time to put your thoughts here. It really helped me understand where I believe you were coming from. There are some disadvantages to working at home when it comes to sounding boards or drawing things up on a white board for those around you in an office to provide/receive face-2-face feedback. Black and white text can be harsher than intended. Now that I understand that it's less 'wrong' and more 'not necessary' or as you put it a personal dislike I can come in off of the ledge ;-). Still there's a lot of history w/r/t the initial posting where I was encouraged to use/update Objects vs. doing what I did creating a new module and essentially renaming objs and objlists. Scaling back and considering usage of objects sent me down this current path which hasn't received as much feedback. It may not be 100% correct, but I really was hoping it wasn't wrong especially since I have working code. Storing the UUID/Name in an @obj is the means I use to make certain decisions along the way - especially w/r/t Add/Remove logic which as I pointed out previously - there's no way to "Add" something without a key nor "Remove" it; however, the Lookup/Search logic do not need it because the hash table keeps track of the key and all the find/lookup vir*obj logic would have the @def->{uuid|name} as input for the search. The ForEach logic won't use it, although it could (more later). Storing the keys in @obj removes a few decision points from the caller. The consumer only cares they've created an object with 1 or 2 keys in order to allow the objList code "find" those keys and make decisions based on the key rather than having multiple API's that fetch using the key name in the API name. Adding to the objlist is just that - adding and not caring/knowing how many or which tables the object is using. While it's certainly not necessary to have UUID/Name and a LookupKeys object, it is convenient and more than just for UUID/Name. The new object is (will be) used to add bool's (active, persistent, started, etc.) that are found in multiple objects in order to have a common API to manage that. It's not required, but something possible. There are some other 'shared' type pieces of data (configFile, autostartLink, autostart, etc.) that could also make use of "sharing" data and code if so inclined. Of course the primary reason I've adjusted all those obj->def->X to be def = obj->def and def->X access is that moving the @def and @newDef inside the object was another initial goal, which needs to be rethought/reworked as that was considered too generic and possibly prone to coding errors. Well @klass is a parameter for other virObject*New() functions, so why should virObjectLookupHashNew not have one? Or asked differently how would virObjectListNew determine it was derived from some class? Does that leave the hash tables in the calling vir*obj.c files or in some common file, such as vircommonobjlist.c? To me that's just a shim to virObject for each of the vir*obj.c. I don't like that solution - we shouldn't create a shim that doesn't converge objects, we would take the plunge and create object code. I also don't like ObjectList if I'm using a hash table - it's not a representative name. Perhaps I'm missing something else you had in mind. @tableElemsStart is the starting size of the hash table that can grow beyond the starting size. Whether it changes names to @tableSize is just window dressing to hide the bikes in the shed. I think the reason why I used a variable was to allow different sizes for different ObjLists. There may have been something else but that's long since left the short term memory. It might be for the clone or backup copy of an ObjList and wanted to have the original table size in order to create the clone. Doesn't seem I use it now though, so saving it could be dropped. Heck we could drop the initial size logic too and give virHashGrow some exercise. Although I see that has some interesting limitations w/r/t bucket chain length and larger element count tables where a max of 2048 buckets can be created allowing bucket chains to potentially grow really long. Perhaps not a problem today with test beds using 100's of objects, but IIRC there was a storage example using 1000's of volumes if not 10's of 1000's. Once you get to about 15K objs, then the probability of longer chains increases (I played around with virhashtest a bit - which currently only maxes at 250 objs, yawn). FWIW: I went away from @useName or @useBool type logic because some tables have UUID only, some have Name only, others have both. For those with one - there is a waste of space, but if we start with table sizes of 1, it's minimized. Again, I preferred @primary and @secondary, but that idea was already squashed. In any case, here's a crudely drawn table of UUID/Name and the various vir*obj consumers. UUID | Name ____________________|___________ NodeDev No | Yes ____________________|___________ Secret Yes | No [1] ____________________|___________ NWFilter Maybe[2]| Yes ____________________|___________ Interface No | Yes ____________________|___________ Network Yes | Yes ____________________|___________ StoragePool Yes | Yes ____________________|___________ StorageVol No | Yes ____________________|___________ Domain Yes | Yes ____________________|___________ [1] I do have patches that would make the secret usage_id be a secondary key [2] Awful piece of history that allows the nwfilter to be defined without a UUID if saving the UUID to the file fails, thus allowing a future start to overwrite the UUID of a previous nwfilter. There's also the possibility that Snapshots could use this, but I don't think it's as beneficial since "unpredictable ordering" for HashTables could make things AFU'd and I don't suppose you'd end up with 1000's of snapshots. Ahhh.. and this is where our fundamental difference lies. You see obj->uuid and obj->name as unnecessary and I find them useful especially for the purpose of adding/removing @obj to/from the @listObj. It seems you'd rather see virObject* API's (or perhaps some new vircommonobjlist.c) that force the callers to know which call to use (ByName/ByUUID) and which table's were created for the object. I prefer having a common API that doesn't need to be that specific, but does the thing just using an argument. Your characterization of "flexible" is my characterization of "control". It's not like UUID/Name are going away - they're just being managed in a lower layer. My view is that the @obj as created during vir*ObjNew is what decides which tables it will need to be present in. The opposing view is I have an object, I'm going to place it in this table and possibly that table and I know where I want to put it and will manage that from the calling function entirely. One thing I would like to see changed is *Remove returning status. Not a a lot of good happens if something during the Remove processing fails and no one is told. Six of one, half-dozen of the other. The consumer is still going to call one or the other ByName/ByUUID, but that leaves that decision point higher up. It's easy enough to make ByName and ByUUID API's, but they just turn into shims to the common code - so why bother? I still prefer the concept of @primary and @secondary. Consider the table above - should it matter that a table stores UUID's? or Names? or just one or two keys? We made the decision early on during ObjNew what our keys would be. After that it's up to calling function to provide some key that we'll search on. For some consumers which use both tables, they want to Find in a specific table and that's why you'd have a boolean to say - don't search primary, search secondary. How about a different idea. Why not make the hash table count variable (1, 2, 3, etc.) and let the caller decide how many to create and which to use. That way the nodedev code removes the 4 or 5 FindBy type API's and replaces it with 4 or 5 hash tables to allow for lookup by key. The consumer can then have vir*ObjListFind{ByUUID|ByName}, but that ends up being a virObjectLookupHashFind(tableobj, tableidx, const char *key) where the consumer knows tableidx = 0 is UUID, tableidx = 1 is Name, etc. [NB: written before rereading and writing the above paragraph regarding configurable number of hash tables] How do you choose which table? How do you know which data the caller wants? Refer to the table above - some objects have UUID and some have Name. Some consumers may even want to return a list of all objects by UUID using an input parameter and other by Name with a different input parameter. The *ForEach ends up being a multi-purpose backend for NumOf, Get{Name|UUID}, and Export functions. Typically the Get{Name|UUID} is the "primary key" for the object, but I'm just saying... While I'm typing this response I just realized that the Get{Names|UUIDs} type API functions wouldn't need vir*obj.c specific *Callback functions to deref obj->def->{name|uuid} since obj->{uuid|name} exists! I'd still need some function to determine whether @aclfilter was passed or not for @def and I'd to know to @useUUID or not. But I could converge things even more than I have. And here's a perfect example of an object that only lives in one table. If I call virObjectLookupHashForEach or virObjectLookupHashSearch and expect to find something in objsUUID, I'm going to be sorely disappointed. One solution is to have two API's - my solution is one API with a parameter that dictates. Given the amount of change since this series was first posted, I have to deal with merge conflicts, the virHashSearch new argument, and using RW locks for all the objlists. So I'm going to have to repost the patches again anyway. At this time, I prefer to leave them as is for the reasons stated regarding avoiding a shim. If that's the avenue to take, then I'll let someone else go down that path. I can finish up cleanup and conversion of all the vir*obj code to use vir*Obj and vir*ObjList, but converging to a shim is something I'll avoid. John