From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NvArE-0003LX-9q for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:49:56 -0400 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=36487 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NvArB-00039I-8g for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:49:55 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NvAm7-0002ho-CB for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:44:41 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:30174) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NvAm7-0002hX-0J for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:44:39 -0400 Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 20:13:09 +0530 From: Amit Shah Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 10/15] virtio-serial: Add QMP events for failed port/device add Message-ID: <20100326144309.GG7039@amit-x200.redhat.com> References: <1269442173-18421-7-git-send-email-amit.shah@redhat.com> <1269442173-18421-8-git-send-email-amit.shah@redhat.com> <1269442173-18421-9-git-send-email-amit.shah@redhat.com> <1269442173-18421-10-git-send-email-amit.shah@redhat.com> <1269442173-18421-11-git-send-email-amit.shah@redhat.com> <20100325155541.570f817d@redhat.com> <20100326021628.GI8111@amit-x200.redhat.com> <20100326101402.02e3fffb@redhat.com> <20100326132620.GE7039@amit-x200.redhat.com> <20100326112903.712262b9@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100326112903.712262b9@redhat.com> List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Luiz Capitulino Cc: qemu list , aliguori@us.ibm.com, "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Gerd Hoffmann , Juan Quintela On (Fri) Mar 26 2010 [11:29:03], Luiz Capitulino wrote: > On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 18:56:20 +0530 > Amit Shah wrote: > > > On (Fri) Mar 26 2010 [10:14:02], Luiz Capitulino wrote: > > > > > > + > > > > > > +VIRTIO_SERIAL > > > > > > +------------- > > > > > > > > > > It should be VIRTIO_SERIAL_ADD. > > > > > > > > What about other events that VIRTIO_SERIAL generates? > > > > > > We don't address this problem currently, maybe an integration with qdev > > > will do, but I have to think more about it. > > > > So should I just keep it as VIRTIO_SERIAL for now? With new events also > > riding on this one? > > I don't like this because with the current events code this will lead > to confusion, as you're using a single event to notify different things. > > My suggestion for the immediate term is to do what we have been doing so > far, ie. call it VIRTIO_SERIAL_ADD. Worst case here is: we add a new way > to group events which requires a new VIRTIO_SERIAL event, in this case we > could emit both, the new VIRTIO_SERIAL and the old VIRTIO_SERIAL_ADD. The > latter would be deprecated too. I've no problem doing it either way - whatever you prefer is fine. BTW these are two distinct events already - failure in initialising a device and failure in initialising a port. Do you think these should be separate as well? > Or, if you can wait I can _try_ to solve this problem next week, although > I have no idea how hard this is going to be. I think it's cleaner to club everything; but basically I'll go with whatever you say. I've no problem waiting. > Any comments, Anthony? Amit