From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NZ3Hg-0007Vq-AX for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 24 Jan 2010 09:17:48 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NZ3Hb-0007Na-Ms for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 24 Jan 2010 09:17:48 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=36749 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NZ3Hb-0007NI-77 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 24 Jan 2010 09:17:43 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:24950) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NZ3Ha-0007zS-Om for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 24 Jan 2010 09:17:43 -0500 Message-ID: <4B5C5682.40506@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 16:17:38 +0200 From: Avi Kivity MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 08/11] QMP: Asynchronous messages enable/disable support References: <1264108180-3666-1-git-send-email-lcapitulino@redhat.com> <1264108180-3666-9-git-send-email-lcapitulino@redhat.com> <4B59E8DF.5020001@codemonkey.ws> <4B5C2251.7050509@redhat.com> <4B5C5358.2000900@codemonkey.ws> In-Reply-To: <4B5C5358.2000900@codemonkey.ws> 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: Anthony Liguori Cc: armbru@redhat.com, aliguori@us.ibm.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Luiz Capitulino On 01/24/2010 04:04 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> I agree with that, but we can look at async messages as a baseline >> protocol capability (thus no negotiation required), and the new >> command only enabled individual messages. > > > To be honest, I don't think there's really a need to mask individual > messages. A client can always ignore messages it doesn't care about. > There is no side effect of receiving a message so there is no > functional implication of receiving messages you don't care about. > > The only time it would matter is if we had a really high volume of > messages. I'd suggest waiting until a message is introduced that > could potentially have a high rate and then implement a mechanism to > mask it. For now, it just adds unnecessary complexity. Fair enough. But then, why can't all clients do that? Dropping an async notification is maybe one line of code. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function