From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:41119) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TePsO-0003ei-Gn for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 07:39:29 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TePsN-0005bP-2F for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 07:39:28 -0500 Received: from mail4.hitachi.co.jp ([133.145.228.5]:56459) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TePsM-0005bB-IG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 07:39:26 -0500 Message-ID: <50B8A924.6090801@hitachi.com> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 21:40:04 +0900 From: Tomoki Sekiyama MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20121130062557.26960.93209.stgit@melchior2.sdl.hitachi.co.jp> <20121130094219.70a862cd@doriath.home> In-Reply-To: <20121130094219.70a862cd@doriath.home> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 0/3] qemu-ga: add hook to quiesce the guest on fsfreeze-freeze/thaw List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: lcapitulino@redhat.com Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com On 2012/11/30 20:42, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 15:25:57 +0900 > Tomoki Sekiyama wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> This is version 5 of the qemu-ga fsfreeze hook patchset. > > This series split is not good. You should squash patches 3/3 and 1/3 and > rebase this series on top of: > > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2012-11/msg03016.html I see, I will resend a patchset squashed and rebased on this. BTW, is there a git branch for 1.4 anywhere? > Also, please look at qmp_shutdown() and bios_supports_mode() for examples > of command execution with improved error reporting. > >> *Changes from v4: ( http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/200924/ ) >> 1/3: Improve error messages when fsfreeze hook is not executable. >> Make fsfreeze-hook disabled by default, and enabled only if >> --fsfreeze-hook option is specified. > > Let me clarify that there are two ways of doing this. One is the way above, > the other way is to enable it by default but allow something like > "--fsfreeze-hook no" to disable the hook execution. I chose the way to disable it by default because it's more precise. If we enable the hook by default, we need to guess whether the hook is executed by its presence, and then the hook placed on wrong path will not cause an error. > Both ways are fine with me. > Thanks, -- Tomoki Sekiyama Linux Technology Center Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory