From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59599) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ds584-0001bb-Gb for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 06:42:49 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ds580-0005mW-IB for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 06:42:48 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:41664) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ds580-0005lq-CB for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 06:42:44 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C23D461E0 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 10:42:43 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 18:42:35 +0800 From: Peter Xu Message-ID: <20170913104235.GG3617@pxdev.xzpeter.org> References: <1505295366-25295-1-git-send-email-peterx@redhat.com> <20170913102842.GE3617@pxdev.xzpeter.org> <3652b029-7a6d-af98-47e0-2e894f471b46@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3652b029-7a6d-af98-47e0-2e894f471b46@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/4] qtest: fix "device_del" out-of-order events List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Thomas Huth Cc: Fam Zheng , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Markus Armbruster , Gerd Hoffmann , Paolo Bonzini , Eric Blake On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 12:35:17PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: [...] > >> As far as I know, some test currently use QMP in a bad way, for example > >> usb_test_hotplug() only checks for the DEVICE_DELETED at the end, but > >> forgets to read back the final return value. That return value is then > >> presented to the next part of the code that uses QMP instead ... it > >> currently only works more or less by accident, but as soon as you try to > >> add new code inbetween, it certainly will fail. > >> ==> We really got to clean this up (either with my patch or your patch > >> series). > > > > Agree. > > > > I think your patch is nicer on the interface (as you have mentioned in > > the other reply), I can try to review it later. > > > > However it seems that your patch didn't really solve the problem I > > encountered (mis-ordered message arrivals). It would be good if you > > want to solve it together, or I can draft patch upon yours. > > True, I'll try to respin my patch, including the ideas from your patch... That would be great. I've left some comments there already. Thanks! -- Peter Xu