From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KM6rN-00011E-2j
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:52:21 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KM6rL-000112-LY
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:52:20 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=54630 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KM6rL-00010z-G9
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:52:19 -0400
Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.238]:54285)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1KM6rL-0008E6-76
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:52:19 -0400
Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id c46so2216206wra.18
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:52:18 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4888DD50.6090606@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:51:44 -0500
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] show register info for all cpus
References: <1216923958-3222-1-git-send-email-gcosta@redhat.com>	<4888CC5C.8080001@codemonkey.ws>
	<5d6222a80807241228h38224cb9jbf40d420baecc4c9@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5d6222a80807241228h38224cb9jbf40d420baecc4c9@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Glauber Costa wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 3:39 PM, Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws> wrote:
>   
>> Do you disagree with this behaviour or were you just not aware of it?  It's
>> unclear from the description in your patch.
>>     
>
> More like not aware. Although I did know about it (in the past), I was
> short termed influenced by "info cpus" output. Maybe we should show
> just one of them at info cpus, for consistency ?
>   

I would be afraid of breaking management applications that rely on the 
output.  Plus, 'info cpus' implies information about multiple cpus :-)

Regards,

Anthony Liguori