From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MKwfK-0007Fz-M7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 28 Jun 2009 11:51:38 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MKwfG-00079l-0l for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 28 Jun 2009 11:51:38 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=38568 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MKwfF-00079O-Tm for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 28 Jun 2009 11:51:33 -0400 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:55904) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MKwfF-000258-KT for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 28 Jun 2009 11:51:33 -0400 Message-ID: <4A4791D9.2050400@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 18:52:57 +0300 From: Avi Kivity MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 08/11] QMP: Port balloon command References: <20090623012933.5b217767@doriath> <4A40A386.7020102@redhat.com> <4A40DFCE.5050008@codemonkey.ws> <20090623135958.660903e1@doriath> <4A412135.2060804@us.ibm.com> <4A435F09.7050702@redhat.com> <20090625161143.01b56eea@doriath> <4A4492FD.4040704@redhat.com> <20090626094224.GE28206@redhat.com> <20090627125833.22d3cc9f@doriath> In-Reply-To: <20090627125833.22d3cc9f@doriath> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Luiz Capitulino Cc: Anthony Liguori , ehabkost@redhat.com, jan.kiszka@siemens.com, dlaor@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 06/27/2009 06:58 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > So, IMHO both solutions (QMP and JSON) solves the problem and I > would work on either one. I just would like that Anthony and Avi > get in agreement, because the project will fail if it becomes > one more difference between qemu and qemu-kvm. > There's no danger of a diverging implementation in this case since no one is proposing to have different monitor protocols. We just need to find the best protocol. Anthony's looking for minimal churn for the existing monitor command set and for libvirt, while I am considering the additional effort for new commands and for new clients. It really isn't very complicated, and the thread only got so long because the topic is relatively simple. Post an RFC and a mile-long patchset about changing TCG to SSA form, and see how you get no replies. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function