From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50250) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1edXhG-0001mz-7k for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 03:43:19 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1edXhB-0001zj-7H for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 03:43:18 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:28199) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1edXhB-0001zH-0y for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 03:43:13 -0500 Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 16:42:56 +0800 From: Peter Xu Message-ID: <20180122084256.GE29532@xz-mi> References: <20171219084557.9801-1-peterx@redhat.com> <20171219084557.9801-21-peterx@redhat.com> <20180109134528.GE31400@stefanha-x1.localdomain> <20180112061610.GL2551@xz-mi> <20180112142036.GC11423@stefanha-x1.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180112142036.GC11423@stefanha-x1.localdomain> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC v6 20/27] qmp: export qmp_dispatch_check_obj and allow "id" List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Stefan Hajnoczi Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Stefan Hajnoczi , "Daniel P . Berrange" , Paolo Bonzini , Fam Zheng , Juan Quintela , mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Eric Blake , Laurent Vivier , Markus Armbruster , marcandre.lureau@redhat.com, "Dr . David Alan Gilbert" On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 02:20:36PM +0000, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 02:16:10PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 01:45:28PM +0000, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 04:45:50PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote: > > > > We need this for earlier check for OOB, before reaching > > > > do_qmp_dispatch(). Meanwhile, a small touch-up to allow "id" field, > > > > after all we allow that for sure in the spec (in any form). > > > > > > This change would be better as part of the patch that needs it. I don't > > > understand the commit description and there is no context in this patch > > > showing how this change is used. > > > > Maybe I should mention it explicitly that "it'll be used in the > > following up patch". > > > > Logically I think this has nothing to do with OOB so I splitted it > > out. I would prefer it to be a separate patch (though I can enrich > > the commit message). Or, I'm also fine if you think squashing this > > into next would be nicer. Thanks, > > I didn't understand the patch in isolation. Maybe rephrasing the commit > description would help. My suggestion to squash it means there will be > more context to review this change and hopefully it will become > self-explanatory. Let me squash it. :-) And, sorry for the confusion. Thanks, -- Peter Xu