From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=50415 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PR11q-00077v-08
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 06:20:46 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lcapitulino@redhat.com>) id 1PR11o-0004PW-7E
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 06:20:45 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:65249)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lcapitulino@redhat.com>) id 1PR11n-0004PK-Su
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 06:20:44 -0500
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 09:20:26 -0200
From: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20101210092026.2a1d037d@doriath>
In-Reply-To: <4D01CA58.3010306@cn.fujitsu.com>
References: <4D01CA58.3010306@cn.fujitsu.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] qemu,
 qmp: convert do_inject_nmi() to QObject, QError
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: aliguori@us.ibm.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, avi@redhat.com

On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 14:36:08 +0800
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:

> +SQMP
> +inject_nmi
> +----------
> +
> +Inject an NMI on the given CPU (x86 only).
> +
> +Arguments:
> +
> +- "cpu_index": the index of the CPU to be injected NMI (json-int)
> +
> +Example:
> +
> +-> { "execute": "inject_nmi", "arguments": { "cpu_index": 0 } }
> +<- { "return": {} }
> +
> +EQMP
> +

Avi, Anthony, can you please review this? Do we expect some kind of ack from
the guest? Do we expect it respond in some way?

Also note that the current series defines only one error condition: invalid
cpu index. Can this fail in other ways?