From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH 0/3 V8] QAPI: add inject-nmi qmp command
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 08:29:47 -0500
Message-ID: <4DB6C8CB.7030706@codemonkey.ws>
References: <4D74A8C9.2020408@cn.fujitsu.com> <4D74A974.6090509@cn.fujitsu.com>	<20110404105949.GA30324@redhat.com> <4D99BF99.1040305@redhat.com>	<4D99C22C.4070401@codemonkey.ws> <20110406144723.45333682@doriath>	<4D9CAAF9.7000509@codemonkey.ws> <20110406150818.56707b9b@doriath>	<4DAE7AF4.3050508@cn.fujitsu.com> <4DAFA34A.3030701@cn.fujitsu.com> <20110426102641.71a60d81@doriath>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>,
	Lai Jiangshan <eag0628@gmail.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
To: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-yx0-f174.google.com ([209.85.213.174]:54689 "EHLO
	mail-yx0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753279Ab1DZN3w (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:29:52 -0400
Received: by yxs7 with SMTP id 7so56024yxs.19
        for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 06:29:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20110426102641.71a60d81@doriath>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On 04/26/2011 08:26 AM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 11:23:54 +0800
> Lai Jiangshan<laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>  wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi, Anthony Liguori
>>
>> Any suggestion?
>>
>> Although all command line interfaces will be converted to to use QMP interfaces in 0.16,
>> I hope inject-nmi come into QAPI earlier, 0.15.
>
> I don't know what Anthony thinks about adding new commands like this one that
> early to the new QMP interface, but adding them to current QMP will certainly
> cause less code churn on your side. That's what I'd recommend for now.

Yeah, sorry, this whole series has been confused in the QAPI discussion.

I did not intend for QAPI to be disruptive to current development.

As far as I can tell, the last series that was posted (before the QAPI 
post) still had checkpatch.pl issues (scripts/checkpatch.pl btw) and we 
had agreed that once that was resolved, it would come in through Luiz's 
tree.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori