From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NZQ08-00025k-Jz
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 09:33:12 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NZQ04-00022C-2k
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 09:33:12 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=46287 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NZQ03-00021w-K8
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 09:33:07 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:63138)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1NZQ03-0003M3-9g
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 09:33:07 -0500
Message-ID: <4B5DAB9E.6040009@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 16:33:02 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
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>
	<20100122180922.73ae437e@doriath>
	<m37hr6tfzn.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
In-Reply-To: <m37hr6tfzn.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Cc: aliguori@us.ibm.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>

On 01/25/2010 04:29 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>
> I agree with Anthony that async message masking doesn't really affect
> the protocol proper.  We could pretend it does so we can let protocol
> capability negotiation (which we need anyway) cover it.  But I'm
> certainly fine with keeping it separate.
>
> Whether we call it protocol or not, the question whether we should
> permit changing the masks at any time is valid, I think.  Permitting it
> adds a bit of conceptual complexity, as a command disabling reporting of
> an event can race with the event.  But that's just giving clients some
> more rope.  I'm fine with that.
>    

Without disagreeing with the rest (which means I'm just nit-picking), 
there's no race.  Once the command that disables an event report returns 
to the caller, the event can no longer be reported.

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