Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/2] help libvirt know what's up with qga

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/2] help libvirt know what's up with qga

[Amit Shah]

On (Thu) 29 May 2014 [21:36:39], Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> In this series I try to implement the ideas that (I believe) were
> suggested by Gerd and Amit in
> <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080376>.
> 
> When the guest agent exits or dies (disconnects from the virtio-serial
> port), the backend (eg. a host-side unix domain socket) doesn't (in
> general, can't) reflect it. This lack of info tends to trip up libvirt
> in some cases, waiting indefinitely for an agent that doesn't exist.
> 
> The series adds two monitor events that report about virtio-serial ports
> being opened and closed (for online notification), and extends the
> "query-chardev" QMP command's return type with a "frontend_open" bool
> (for querying at late libvirt startup).
> 
> Admittedly, these two don't report on the same level (frontend vs.
> backend), but the association is under libvirt's control, so it should
> be fine, and it helps keep the series non-intrusive. (Also known as, "I
> have a fleeting chance implementing it, having authored neither chardev
> nor virtio-serial".)

Hey, that's alright :-)

I don't have a problem with the series, and please don't let me block
it -- I already see you and Eric had a nice discussion, and I don't
feel strongly about anything there -- so for things where you're
waiting on me, please pick what both of you think is best.

Thanks,
 
		Amit

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2] char: report frontend open/closed state in 'query-chardev'

[Laszlo Ersek]

On 05/29/14 23:05, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 05/29/2014 02:43 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> 
>>>> +#                 backend (eg. with the chardev=... option) is in open or
>>>> +#                 closed state (since 2.2)
>>>
>>> Why 2.2? Are you saying it is too late to make the 2.1 soft freeze?
>>
>> I thought that reviewers would immediately question the direction of the
>> patchset (ie. monitor events + new query field), and not just suggest
>> tweaks; so 2.2 seemed safer. Perhaps I can make it till the 2.1 soft
>> freeze (June 17th), but that depends (as I've learned now) on Wenchao's
>> series too.
> 
> Actually, I think your series and Wenchao's are mostly orthogonal -
> either could go in first, and it's just fine if one hits 2.1 while the
> other waits till 2.2.  It's just a matter of code churn, where getting
> both in means whoever is second has to consider the code added in the
> meantime (either your series is tweaked to use the qapi generation, or
> Wenchao's series is tweaked to convert "one" more event).

I'm thinking about resuming work on this. Wenchao's series has been
applied (ends at commit 75175173). We're between soft and hard freeze
now. Should I aim at 2.1 or 2.2?

Thanks!
Laszlo

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2] char: report frontend open/closed state in 'query-chardev'

[Eric Blake]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2570 bytes --]

[cc'ing Luiz]

On 06/24/2014 08:21 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 05/29/14 23:05, Eric Blake wrote:
>> On 05/29/2014 02:43 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:

>>> In this series I try to implement the ideas that (I believe) were
>>> suggested by Gerd and Amit in
>>> <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080376>.
>>> 
>>> When the guest agent exits or dies (disconnects from the virtio-serial
>>> port), the backend (eg. a host-side unix domain socket) doesn't (in
>>> general, can't) reflect it. This lack of info tends to trip up libvirt
>>> in some cases, waiting indefinitely for an agent that doesn't exist.
>>> 
>>> The series adds two monitor events that report about virtio-serial ports
>>> being opened and closed (for online notification), and extends the
>>> "query-chardev" QMP command's return type with a "frontend_open" bool
>>> (for querying at late libvirt startup).

>>
>>>>> +#                 backend (eg. with the chardev=... option) is in open or
>>>>> +#                 closed state (since 2.2)
>>>>
>>>> Why 2.2? Are you saying it is too late to make the 2.1 soft freeze?
>>>
>>> I thought that reviewers would immediately question the direction of the
>>> patchset (ie. monitor events + new query field), and not just suggest
>>> tweaks; so 2.2 seemed safer. Perhaps I can make it till the 2.1 soft
>>> freeze (June 17th), but that depends (as I've learned now) on Wenchao's
>>> series too.
>>
>> Actually, I think your series and Wenchao's are mostly orthogonal -
>> either could go in first, and it's just fine if one hits 2.1 while the
>> other waits till 2.2.  It's just a matter of code churn, where getting
>> both in means whoever is second has to consider the code added in the
>> meantime (either your series is tweaked to use the qapi generation, or
>> Wenchao's series is tweaked to convert "one" more event).
> 
> I'm thinking about resuming work on this. Wenchao's series has been
> applied (ends at commit 75175173). We're between soft and hard freeze
> now. Should I aim at 2.1 or 2.2?

This series was posted before soft freeze, but adds a new feature.  If
we're going to get it in the 2.1 release, it must be before hard freeze.
 I'll leave it up to Luiz whether a QMP addition this late in the game
is safe to take, although my personal opinion is that since it was
proposed before soft freeze, and DOES make life easier for libvirt, it
is worth a strong consideration.

-- 
Eric Blake   eblake redhat com    +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 604 bytes --]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2] char: report frontend open/closed state in 'query-chardev'

[Luiz Capitulino]

On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 08:36:36 -0600
Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> wrote:

> [cc'ing Luiz]
> 
> On 06/24/2014 08:21 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> > On 05/29/14 23:05, Eric Blake wrote:
> >> On 05/29/2014 02:43 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> 
> >>> In this series I try to implement the ideas that (I believe) were
> >>> suggested by Gerd and Amit in
> >>> <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080376>.
> >>> 
> >>> When the guest agent exits or dies (disconnects from the virtio-serial
> >>> port), the backend (eg. a host-side unix domain socket) doesn't (in
> >>> general, can't) reflect it. This lack of info tends to trip up libvirt
> >>> in some cases, waiting indefinitely for an agent that doesn't exist.
> >>> 
> >>> The series adds two monitor events that report about virtio-serial ports
> >>> being opened and closed (for online notification), and extends the
> >>> "query-chardev" QMP command's return type with a "frontend_open" bool
> >>> (for querying at late libvirt startup).
> 
> >>
> >>>>> +#                 backend (eg. with the chardev=... option) is in open or
> >>>>> +#                 closed state (since 2.2)
> >>>>
> >>>> Why 2.2? Are you saying it is too late to make the 2.1 soft freeze?
> >>>
> >>> I thought that reviewers would immediately question the direction of the
> >>> patchset (ie. monitor events + new query field), and not just suggest
> >>> tweaks; so 2.2 seemed safer. Perhaps I can make it till the 2.1 soft
> >>> freeze (June 17th), but that depends (as I've learned now) on Wenchao's
> >>> series too.
> >>
> >> Actually, I think your series and Wenchao's are mostly orthogonal -
> >> either could go in first, and it's just fine if one hits 2.1 while the
> >> other waits till 2.2.  It's just a matter of code churn, where getting
> >> both in means whoever is second has to consider the code added in the
> >> meantime (either your series is tweaked to use the qapi generation, or
> >> Wenchao's series is tweaked to convert "one" more event).
> > 
> > I'm thinking about resuming work on this. Wenchao's series has been
> > applied (ends at commit 75175173). We're between soft and hard freeze
> > now. Should I aim at 2.1 or 2.2?
> 
> This series was posted before soft freeze, but adds a new feature.  If
> we're going to get it in the 2.1 release, it must be before hard freeze.
>  I'll leave it up to Luiz whether a QMP addition this late in the game
> is safe to take, although my personal opinion is that since it was
> proposed before soft freeze, and DOES make life easier for libvirt, it
> is worth a strong consideration.

Has this series being reviewed?

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2] char: report frontend open/closed state in 'query-chardev'

[Eric Blake]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1389 bytes --]

On 06/25/2014 07:02 AM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 08:36:36 -0600
> Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> [cc'ing Luiz]
>>
>> On 06/24/2014 08:21 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>> On 05/29/14 23:05, Eric Blake wrote:
>>>> On 05/29/2014 02:43 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>
>>>>> In this series I try to implement the ideas that (I believe) were
>>>>> suggested by Gerd and Amit in
>>>>> <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080376>.
>>>>>

>>>
>>> I'm thinking about resuming work on this. Wenchao's series has been
>>> applied (ends at commit 75175173). We're between soft and hard freeze
>>> now. Should I aim at 2.1 or 2.2?
>>
>> This series was posted before soft freeze, but adds a new feature.  If
>> we're going to get it in the 2.1 release, it must be before hard freeze.
>>  I'll leave it up to Luiz whether a QMP addition this late in the game
>> is safe to take, although my personal opinion is that since it was
>> proposed before soft freeze, and DOES make life easier for libvirt, it
>> is worth a strong consideration.
> 
> Has this series being reviewed?

v1 was reviewed pre-freeze; Laszlo has not yet posted v2 (in part
because it was waiting on the qapi-as-event series which is now finally
upstream).


-- 
Eric Blake   eblake redhat com    +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 604 bytes --]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2] char: report frontend open/closed state in 'query-chardev'

[Luiz Capitulino]

On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:14:08 -0600
Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 06/25/2014 07:02 AM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 08:36:36 -0600
> > Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> [cc'ing Luiz]
> >>
> >> On 06/24/2014 08:21 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> >>> On 05/29/14 23:05, Eric Blake wrote:
> >>>> On 05/29/2014 02:43 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> In this series I try to implement the ideas that (I believe) were
> >>>>> suggested by Gerd and Amit in
> >>>>> <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080376>.
> >>>>>
> 
> >>>
> >>> I'm thinking about resuming work on this. Wenchao's series has been
> >>> applied (ends at commit 75175173). We're between soft and hard freeze
> >>> now. Should I aim at 2.1 or 2.2?
> >>
> >> This series was posted before soft freeze, but adds a new feature.  If
> >> we're going to get it in the 2.1 release, it must be before hard freeze.
> >>  I'll leave it up to Luiz whether a QMP addition this late in the game
> >> is safe to take, although my personal opinion is that since it was
> >> proposed before soft freeze, and DOES make life easier for libvirt, it
> >> is worth a strong consideration.
> > 
> > Has this series being reviewed?
> 
> v1 was reviewed pre-freeze; Laszlo has not yet posted v2 (in part
> because it was waiting on the qapi-as-event series which is now finally
> upstream).

I'm fine with having it for 2.1. It would be great if v2 is posted today or
tomorrow.

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2] char: report frontend open/closed state in 'query-chardev'

[Laszlo Ersek]

On 06/25/14 15:16, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:14:08 -0600
> Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 06/25/2014 07:02 AM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
>>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 08:36:36 -0600
>>> Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> [cc'ing Luiz]
>>>>
>>>> On 06/24/2014 08:21 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>>>> On 05/29/14 23:05, Eric Blake wrote:
>>>>>> On 05/29/2014 02:43 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> In this series I try to implement the ideas that (I believe) were
>>>>>>> suggested by Gerd and Amit in
>>>>>>> <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080376>.
>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm thinking about resuming work on this. Wenchao's series has been
>>>>> applied (ends at commit 75175173). We're between soft and hard freeze
>>>>> now. Should I aim at 2.1 or 2.2?
>>>>
>>>> This series was posted before soft freeze, but adds a new feature.  If
>>>> we're going to get it in the 2.1 release, it must be before hard freeze.
>>>>  I'll leave it up to Luiz whether a QMP addition this late in the game
>>>> is safe to take, although my personal opinion is that since it was
>>>> proposed before soft freeze, and DOES make life easier for libvirt, it
>>>> is worth a strong consideration.
>>>
>>> Has this series being reviewed?
>>
>> v1 was reviewed pre-freeze; Laszlo has not yet posted v2 (in part
>> because it was waiting on the qapi-as-event series which is now finally
>> upstream).
> 
> I'm fine with having it for 2.1. It would be great if v2 is posted today or
> tomorrow.

It would be great indeed, but today is quite impossible for me. Tomorrow
might work, however I usually mess up when I rush things. Until end of
the week (Sunday) is more realistic for me, but it's probably not
convenient for you. I'm OK if we push this to 2.2.

Thanks
Laszlo

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2] char: report frontend open/closed state in 'query-chardev'

[Luiz Capitulino]

On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 15:25:28 +0200
Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 06/25/14 15:16, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:14:08 -0600
> > Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 06/25/2014 07:02 AM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 08:36:36 -0600
> >>> Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> [cc'ing Luiz]
> >>>>
> >>>> On 06/24/2014 08:21 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> >>>>> On 05/29/14 23:05, Eric Blake wrote:
> >>>>>> On 05/29/2014 02:43 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> In this series I try to implement the ideas that (I believe) were
> >>>>>>> suggested by Gerd and Amit in
> >>>>>>> <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080376>.
> >>>>>>>
> >>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm thinking about resuming work on this. Wenchao's series has been
> >>>>> applied (ends at commit 75175173). We're between soft and hard freeze
> >>>>> now. Should I aim at 2.1 or 2.2?
> >>>>
> >>>> This series was posted before soft freeze, but adds a new feature.  If
> >>>> we're going to get it in the 2.1 release, it must be before hard freeze.
> >>>>  I'll leave it up to Luiz whether a QMP addition this late in the game
> >>>> is safe to take, although my personal opinion is that since it was
> >>>> proposed before soft freeze, and DOES make life easier for libvirt, it
> >>>> is worth a strong consideration.
> >>>
> >>> Has this series being reviewed?
> >>
> >> v1 was reviewed pre-freeze; Laszlo has not yet posted v2 (in part
> >> because it was waiting on the qapi-as-event series which is now finally
> >> upstream).
> > 
> > I'm fine with having it for 2.1. It would be great if v2 is posted today or
> > tomorrow.
> 
> It would be great indeed, but today is quite impossible for me. Tomorrow
> might work, however I usually mess up when I rush things. Until end of
> the week (Sunday) is more realistic for me, but it's probably not
> convenient for you. I'm OK if we push this to 2.2.

I'm planning to send a pull request on Friday. We're going to have an extended
holiday where I live until Tuesday (inclusive). I'll probably work on Monday,
but it'd be better to be done with non-crucial stuff before that.