* Paolo Bonzini ([email protected]) wrote:
> On 4/27/22 14:34, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > If I specify a 'vm' it's not obvious to me whether I'd get NICs and
> > block devices in the future?
>
> VM would not get those (it's global statistics), but the size could balloon
> if you specify no target at all.
>
> > Adding a syntax for 'all' into the vcpus list would fix that?
>
> I don't like having special syntax. The current QAPI just doesn't filter
> what is not in the arguments.
Is there a object that represents the set of all vcpus?
> > > > "providers": [
> > > > { "provider": "kvm",
> > > > "names": [ "l1d_flush", "exits" ] } } }
> > > >
> > > > It's not clear to me whether the "target" should also be specific
> > > > to a given provider.
> > >
> > > No, the target is a QEMU concept, such as a CPU or a device backend. It
> > > is
> > > identified by either a QOM path or a unique id.
> >
> > But doesn't 'kvm' as a provider only make sense for vcpus and VMs; if
> > you're imagining block devices and other things as targets it would seem
> > wrong to have that set of providers separate.
>
> Yes, those would have different providers. But a single target can support
> multiple providers.
Is that just for different implementations - kvm/hcf/tcg etc or do you
envisage multiple providers on an object in a running VM?
Dave
> Paolo
>
--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / [email protected] / Manchester, UK
