From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:58001) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S0C4R-0002jf-Nv for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 08:17:24 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S0C4M-0003Vx-4u for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 08:17:23 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:64472) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S0C4L-0003VC-Ov for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 08:17:18 -0500 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q1MDHGvN011792 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 08:17:16 -0500 Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:17:17 -0200 From: Luiz Capitulino Message-ID: <20120222111717.0c56390f@doriath.home> In-Reply-To: <20120221174016.GO6476@garlic> References: <1329686886-6853-1-git-send-email-alevy@redhat.com> <1329686886-6853-6-git-send-email-alevy@redhat.com> <4F422F5C.9060202@redhat.com> <4F42BB27.6070504@redhat.com> <20120221081948.GC6476@garlic> <4F43C331.7090000@redhat.com> <20120221174016.GO6476@garlic> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 5/7] qxl-render: call ppm_save on callback List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Alon Levy Cc: Eric Blake , Gerd Hoffmann , elmarco@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 19:40:16 +0200 Alon Levy wrote: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 09:15:45AM -0700, Eric Blake wrote: > > On 02/21/2012 01:19 AM, Alon Levy wrote: > > > > >>> (2) Async monitor command. Keeps interface and works nicely. A bunch > > >>> of QAPI bits tickled into master meanwhile, so we could look at > > >>> this again. Luiz? What is the status here? The qapi infra is already in place for sometime now, but it doesn't support async commands yet. However, we're accepting a combination of command + async event on completion for commands that have to be async. We'll eventually have a good interface for async support, but it's not likely we'll have it for 1.1 (possible, but unlikely). I think item 2 above is a good way to go, considering it will add a new command, of course. > Luiz said that this interface is going to be dropped, so we don't want > to introduce another user to it now. Please don't :)