From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38691) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZbWKN-0003Dl-0K for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 12:09:59 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZbWKM-00045X-5n for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 12:09:58 -0400 From: Markus Armbruster References: <1441878905-5272-1-git-send-email-wency@cn.fujitsu.com> <1441878905-5272-5-git-send-email-wency@cn.fujitsu.com> <87mvwpkqzi.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> <20150914153444.GD3550@noname.str.redhat.com> Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 18:09:51 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20150914153444.GD3550@noname.str.redhat.com> (Kevin Wolf's message of "Mon, 14 Sep 2015 17:34:44 +0200") Message-ID: <87lhc9kmnk.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 4/5] qmp: add monitor command to add/remove a child List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Kevin Wolf Cc: Alberto Garcia , zhanghailiang , qemu block , Jiang Yunhong , Dong Eddie , qemu devel , "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" , Gonglei , Stefan Hajnoczi , Yang Hongyang Kevin Wolf writes: > Am 14.09.2015 um 16:36 hat Markus Armbruster geschrieben: >> Wen Congyang writes: >> > diff --git a/qmp-commands.hx b/qmp-commands.hx >> > index 495670b..139a23b 100644 >> > --- a/qmp-commands.hx >> > +++ b/qmp-commands.hx >> > @@ -4053,6 +4053,59 @@ Example: >> > EQMP >> > >> > { >> > + .name = "x-child-add", >> > + .args_type = "parent:B,child:B", >> > + .mhandler.cmd_new = qmp_marshal_input_x_child_add, >> > + }, >> > + >> > +SQMP >> > +x-child-add >> > +------------ >> > + >> > +Add a child to a quorum node. >> > + >> > +Arguments: >> > + >> > +- "parent": the quorum's id or node name >> > +- "child": the child node-name which will be added >> >> Node name parameters are usually named node-name or, if there's more >> than one, FOO-node-name. Unless we want to abandon that convention, >> this should therefore be node-name and child-node-name, or parent-node >> name and child-node-name. > > Didn't we come to the conclusion that foo-node-name is redundant and > should just be foo, leaving things like node-name only for cases where > there is no foo? I don't remember :) I'm fine with simpler names.