From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3] qemu, qmp: convert do_inject_nmi() to
 QObject, QError
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:14:11 -0200
Message-ID: <20101215151411.0f52b692@doriath>
References: <4D088F27.8000909@cn.fujitsu.com>
	<m3pqt3xqdo.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, avi@redhat.com
To: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:2823 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1753495Ab0LOROY (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 15 Dec 2010 12:14:24 -0500
In-Reply-To: <m3pqt3xqdo.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 11:49:23 +0100
Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> wrote:

> Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com> writes:
> 
> > Convert do_inject_nmi() to QObject, QError, we need to use it(via libvirt).
> >
> > changed from v1
> > Add document.
> > Add error handling when the cpu index is invalid.
> >
> > changed from v2
> > use QERR_INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE as Markus suggest.
> >
> > Signed-off-by:  Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
> 
> A note on commit messages:
> 
> The commit message should describe the current version of the patch.
> Don't repeat the subject line in the body.
> 
> Patch history is very useful for review, but usually uninteresting once
> the patch is committed.  Thus, it's best to put it after the "---"
> separator.
> 
> Subsystem tags in the subject line are helpful.  But "qemu" doesn't
> provide any information there :)
> 
> 
> Regarding the patch:
> 
> The conversion looks good.
> 
> The new QMP command is called "inject_nmi", while the existing human
> monitor command is called "nmi".  Luiz asked for this name change.  I
> don't mind.  But should we rename the human monitor command for
> consistency?

I don't think so, we don't need (and maybe don't even want) naming parity
between QMP and HMP. Remember that one of our mistakes was to couple the two.

Also, Avi asked for more descriptive names in QMP and I agree with him, I
would even be in favor of calling it inject-non-maskable-interrupt.

> 
> Regardless, the differing command name is worth mentioning in the commit
> message.