From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50971) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f0IgB-0000Mo-32 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 25 Mar 2018 23:20:16 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f0Ig7-0008Ne-Np for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 25 Mar 2018 23:20:15 -0400 Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:55430 helo=mx1.redhat.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f0Ig7-0008Jg-Jm for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 25 Mar 2018 23:20:11 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03E63401DECF for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 03:20:07 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 11:19:58 +0800 From: Peter Xu Message-ID: <20180326031958.GV32362@xz-mi> References: <20180323103239.32414-1-marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> <20180323153537.GS32362@xz-mi> <15aaea55-9ebd-8a16-c25e-c9bc709fcabc@redhat.com> <20180324014150.GU32362@xz-mi> <51f5f5e5-61c3-e5c6-e925-4f2e9fdc4403@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <51f5f5e5-61c3-e5c6-e925-4f2e9fdc4403@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] monitor: fix expected qmp_capabilities error description regression List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Marc-Andr=C3=A9?= Lureau , qemu-devel On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 06:41:04AM -0500, Eric Blake wrote: > On 03/23/2018 08:41 PM, Peter Xu wrote: > > > > There have been quite a few patch ideas across multiple threads related to > > > OOB fallout. Hopefully I can keep straight which patches are intended for > > > 2.12 (anything that fixes a bug, like this one, is a good candidate, > > > > I'll mark patches with "for-2.12" if there are. > > > > > and it > > > would be nice if we can undo the temporary reversion of exposing OOB if we > > > can solve all the issues that iotests exposed). > > > > IMHO it'll still be risky considering what has already reported. > > > > Here's my plan, hopefully to make everyone happy - we keep OOB turned > > off for 2.12 and even later. In 2.13, I'll post some new patches to > > add a new monitor parameter to allow user to enable OOB explicitly, > > otherwise we never enable it. After all, for now the only real user > > should be postcopy. Then we don't need to struggle around all these > > mess. What do you think? > > If you're going to add a CLI parameter that must be specified for OOB to > even be advertised, then it is MUCH less invasive to existing clients (it > does mean that opting in to OOB now requires the command line argument AND > the capability request during qmp_capabilities) - as such, enabling the > opt-in during 2.12 is less controversial, and I see no reason to defer it to > 2.13, especially if you want to maximize testing of the new feature to shake > out the bugs it encounters. > > If you want to be cautious, name the command-line parameter --x-oob for now, > we can rename it later to drop the x- prefix, or remove the parameter > altogether if we decide by opting in via merely qmp_capabilities is > sufficient. Hmm, it seems I don't even need to wait. :-) I'll prepare something soon (together with some existing known fixes). Thanks! -- Peter Xu