From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LPG9N-0007Gv-AK
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2009 07:56:13 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LPG9K-0007Gd-Nn
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2009 07:56:12 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=47568 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LPG9K-0007Ga-KT
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2009 07:56:10 -0500
Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:38070)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1LPG9K-0004Sp-31
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2009 07:56:10 -0500
Message-ID: <4975C9E5.2010909@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 14:56:05 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 1/2] Print asynchronous notifications
	on	request
References: <1232448066-32209-1-git-send-email-amit.shah@redhat.com>
	<4975B6FB.6080302@siemens.com>
In-Reply-To: <4975B6FB.6080302@siemens.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Amit Shah <amit.shah@redhat.com>, aliguori@us.ibm.com

Jan Kiszka wrote:
> I understand the need, but the result looks a bit ugly, at least to
> humans forced to parse it. If you get this while in the middle of type a
> command... Moreover, is it impossible that such an async notification is
> issued while some other subsystem is already dumping a multi-line
> message to the monitor (using multiple prints)? That would be really
> problematic.
>   

No, unless that subsystem schedules between prints.

> But if this approach is merged, then I would really say we need
> separately configurable monitor terminals, 

No no please no

> and notify should then only
> affect the issuing one. However, my feeling is that a real
> machine-dedicated and easily processable channel would be better suited
> for this use case.
>   

Definitely.  Have a machine protocol with a strong emphasis on 
compatibility and parseability, and a human protocol with emphasis on 
friendliness (prompts, completions, fix typos).

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function