Re: [libvirt] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v7 1/3] qmp: adding 'wakeup-suspend-support' in query-target

On 05/21/2018 03:14 PM, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > Issue#2: the flag isn't a property of the target. Due to -no-acpi, it's > > not even a property of the machine type. If it was, query-machines > > would be the natural owner of the flag. > > > > Perhaps query-machines is still the proper owner. The value of > > wakeup-suspend-support would have to depend on -no-acpi for the machine > > types that honor it. Not ideal; I'd prefer MachineInfo to be static. > > Tolerable? I guess that's also a libvirt question. > It depends when libvirt is going to query it. Is it OK to only > query it after the VM is already up and running? If it is, then > we can simply expose it as a read-only property of the machine > object. > > Or, if we don't want to rely on qom-get as a stable API, we can > add a new query command (query-machine? query-power-management?) > In the first version this logic was included in a new query command called "query-wakeup-from-suspend-support": https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-12/msg00889.html In that review it was suggested that this logic could be a flag in either query-target or query-machines API. Before sending the v2 I sent the following comment: "After investigating, I think that it's simpler to hook the wakeup support info into TargetInfo than MachineInfo, given that the detection I'm using for this new property is based on the current runtime state. Hooking into MachineInfo would require to change the MachineClass to add a new property, then setting it up for the machines that have the wakeup support (only x86 so far). Definitely doable, but if we don't have any favorites between MachineInfo and TargetInfo I'd rather pick the simpler route. So, if no one objects, I'll rework this series by putting the logic inside query-target instead of a new API."

Since no objection was made back then, this logic was put into query-target starting in v2. Still, I don't have any favorites though: query-target looks ok, query-machine looks ok and a new API looks ok too. It's all about what makes (more) sense in the management level, I think.