From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:58223) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SWT8R-0005mf-5N for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 21 May 2012 09:58:56 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SWT8K-0003Tv-Ud for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 21 May 2012 09:58:54 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:43823) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SWT8K-0003TW-NA for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 21 May 2012 09:58:48 -0400 Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 10:59:01 -0300 From: Luiz Capitulino Message-ID: <20120521105901.4fbe7363@doriath.home> In-Reply-To: <4FB6821A.1080902@redhat.com> References: <4FB6821A.1080902@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Proposal for extensions of block job commands in QEMU 1.2 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Kevin Wolf , aliguori@us.ibm.com, Stefan Hajnoczi , qemu-devel , Federico Simoncelli , Eric Blake On Fri, 18 May 2012 19:08:42 +0200 Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Modified QMP commands > ===================== As we have discussed on the ML, we're not going to extend QMP commands. I understand your reasoning, and since the beginning I thought this was something useful to do, but we've already settled for not doing this. I also think that we shouldn't have exceptions, as in practice this means we're extending commands anyway. So either, we do it or we don't.