From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=49684 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PZnmh-0008EU-Qh for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 03 Jan 2011 12:01:29 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PZnmf-00072d-LD for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 03 Jan 2011 12:01:27 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:65193) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PZnmf-00071z-EM for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 03 Jan 2011 12:01:25 -0500 Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 15:01:17 -0200 From: Luiz Capitulino Message-ID: <20110103150117.148546db@doriath> In-Reply-To: <20101220104746.GC16707@amt.cnet> References: <4D01CA58.3010306@cn.fujitsu.com> <20101210092026.2a1d037d@doriath> <20101220104746.GC16707@amt.cnet> 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: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Marcelo Tosatti Cc: avi@redhat.com, aliguori@us.ibm.com, Lai Jiangshan , kvm@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 08:47:46 -0200 Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 09:20:26AM -0200, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > > On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 14:36:08 +0800 > > Lai Jiangshan 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? > > Looks good to me. Don't except any response from the guest. > > > Also note that the current series defines only one error condition: invalid > > cpu index. Can this fail in other ways? > > -- > > Not really. An NMI can be pending already (which means the current > command has no effect), but i don't see the need to report that. Ok, thanks for the feedback Marcelo. >