From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:48019)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lcapitulino@redhat.com>) id 1QTxXv-0005sX-EB
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 10:46:24 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lcapitulino@redhat.com>) id 1QTxXs-0004hp-UA
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 10:46:19 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:57320)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lcapitulino@redhat.com>) id 1QTxXs-0004hI-Ej
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 10:46:16 -0400
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 11:46:09 -0300
From: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20110607114609.1938a2c3@doriath>
In-Reply-To: <4DECD163.9030704@codemonkey.ws>
References: <20110601181255.077fb5fd@doriath> <4DE6B087.6010708@codemonkey.ws>
	<20110602145730.4c80d668@doriath> <4DE7CFA4.9040300@codemonkey.ws>
	<20110602150900.7d2657fb@doriath> <4DEC9D07.5080409@redhat.com>
	<4DECD163.9030704@codemonkey.ws>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] QMP: RFC: I/O error info & query-stop-reason
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/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: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com>, jdenemar@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>

On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 08:08:51 -0500
Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws> wrote:

> On 06/06/2011 04:25 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > Am 02.06.2011 20:09, schrieb Luiz Capitulino:
> >>>> I'm ok with either way. But in case you meant the second one, I guess
> >>>> we should make "reason" a dictionary so that we can group related
> >>>> information when we extend the field, for example:
> >>>>
> >>>>    "reason": { "no space": false, "no permission": true }
> >
> > Splitting up enums into a number of booleans looks like a bad idea to
> > me. It makes things more verbose than they should be, and even worse, it
> > implies that more than one field could be true.
> 
> I agree.  What I had suggested was to not have a reason at all.

Is it better if we add a new enum to query-block? Like the "io-error" key we
have talked about earlier? Like:

 "io-error": "no space"

We could have "no space", "low level" (that's how the man page defines EIO) and
"unknown".