From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=54657 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PbEgG-0005kc-PJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 07 Jan 2011 10:56:45 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PbEgF-0005VE-N0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 07 Jan 2011 10:56:44 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:4597) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PbEgF-0005Uz-EL for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 07 Jan 2011 10:56:43 -0500 From: Alex Williamson In-Reply-To: <4D273539.6060601@web.de> References: <20110107071815.26658.403.stgit@s20.home> <4D26D40D.4080600@web.de> <1294414794.3214.4.camel@x201> <4D273539.6060601@web.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2011 08:56:39 -0700 Message-ID: <1294415799.3214.5.camel@x201> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] savevm: print migration failure to stderr rather than monitor List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jan Kiszka Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, quintela@redhat.com On Fri, 2011-01-07 at 16:46 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote: > Am 07.01.2011 16:39, Alex Williamson wrote: > > On Fri, 2011-01-07 at 09:51 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >> Am 07.01.2011 08:18, Alex Williamson wrote: > >>> monitor_print only does anything for foreground commands, so we > >>> don't ever see this error message in the case of a 'migrate -d'. > >> > >> Your change needlessly steals the error from the monitor console where > >> it belongs if migrate is used without -d. IIRC, mon is NULL in detached > >> mode, so only print to stderr if there is no alternative. Otherwise > >> stick with the monitor for interactive use. > > > > Indeed, mon is NULL. That makes this an easy > > > > if (mon) { > > monitor_printf() > > } else { > > fprintf() > > } > > > > But I wonder if we should put the fprintf in the monitor_printf() path > > so we're not just special casing this one user. Should all > > monitor_printfs go to stderr if there's no monitor? Thanks, > > IIRC, there are valid cased where you want to suppress status updates of > some subsystem by handing out a NULL monitor. > > If this error is critical (likely), then user error_report instead. It > does the right thing. Thanks, that works well. Follow-up to come. Alex