From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NYPp7-0007SJ-4v for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Jan 2010 15:09:41 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NYPp2-0007QC-G5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Jan 2010 15:09:40 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=54750 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NYPp2-0007Q8-9S for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Jan 2010 15:09:36 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:45088) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NYPp1-0001Qp-Kx for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Jan 2010 15:09:36 -0500 Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:09:22 -0200 From: Luiz Capitulino Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 08/11] QMP: Asynchronous messages enable/disable support Message-ID: <20100122180922.73ae437e@doriath> In-Reply-To: <4B59E8DF.5020001@codemonkey.ws> References: <1264108180-3666-1-git-send-email-lcapitulino@redhat.com> <1264108180-3666-9-git-send-email-lcapitulino@redhat.com> <4B59E8DF.5020001@codemonkey.ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: aliguori@us.ibm.com, avi@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, armbru@redhat.com On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 12:05:19 -0600 Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 01/21/2010 03:09 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > > This commit disables asynchronous messages by default and > > introduces two new QMP commands: async_msg_enable and > > async_msg_disable. > > > > Each QMP Monitor has its own set of asynchronous messages, > > so for example, if QEMU is run with two QMP Monitors async > > messages setup in one of them doesn't affect the other. > > > > To implement this design a bitmap is introduced to the > > Monitor struct, each async message is represented by one bit. > > > > Signed-off-by: Luiz Capitulino > > > > Ah, I see I was a little confused. > > I'd suggest making async message masking an independent mechanism. > Capabilities should strictly deal with protocol changes, not feature > details. To summarize (after a IRC talk): async messages are considered a capability and should be enabled during the negotiation phase but the masking of particular messages are not and can be done at any time after the negotiation phase. I'm ok with that, Markus?