From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01DF4C04AAC for ; Tue, 21 May 2019 01:16:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC0462173C for ; Tue, 21 May 2019 01:16:35 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org CC0462173C Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44525 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hStOM-0001qQ-Rg for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Mon, 20 May 2019 21:16:34 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:36655) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hStNT-0001Bl-DE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 20 May 2019 21:15:41 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hStNP-0007mB-1g for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 20 May 2019 21:15:38 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:26886) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hStNK-0007ka-WA for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 20 May 2019 21:15:33 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42F9F85545 for ; Tue, 21 May 2019 01:15:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from xz-x1 (ovpn-12-18.pek2.redhat.com [10.72.12.18]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD02F1001DE7; Tue, 21 May 2019 01:15:21 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 09:15:16 +0800 From: Peter Xu To: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <20190521011516.GP16681@xz-x1> References: <20190520030839.6795-1-peterx@redhat.com> <20190520030839.6795-14-peterx@redhat.com> <5d9174bc-0f3b-100f-e400-eeb94680020a@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5d9174bc-0f3b-100f-e400-eeb94680020a@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.22 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.28]); Tue, 21 May 2019 01:15:25 +0000 (UTC) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 209.132.183.28 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 13/15] qmp: Expose manual_dirty_log_protect via "query-kvm" X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Laurent Vivier , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Dr . David Alan Gilbert" , Juan Quintela Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 12:44:29PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 20/05/19 05:08, Peter Xu wrote: > > Expose the new capability via "query-kvm" QMP command too so we know > > whether that's turned on on the source VM when we want. > > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu > > Is this useful? We could I guess make a migration capability in order > to benchmark with the old code, but otherwise I would just make this a > "hidden" optimization just like many others (same for patch 14). > > In other words, there are many other capabilities that we could inform > the user about, I don't see what makes manual_dirty_log_protect special. Yes this is mostly used for me to make sure the new capability is enabled when comparing with the old code. I added QMP part too because otherwise I'll need to justify why I only add HMP... But I agree with above - let's drop these two QMP/HMP patches. Thanks, -- Peter Xu