From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1O6O8e-0008J5-4c
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 09:14:16 -0400
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=58965 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1O6O8c-0008Iu-GF
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 09:14:15 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1O6O8b-0003Rm-4F
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 09:14:14 -0400
Received: from mail-gy0-f173.google.com ([209.85.160.173]:39369)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1O6O8b-0003Rf-0M
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 09:14:13 -0400
Received: by gyd5 with SMTP id 5so6110113gyd.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 06:14:12 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4BD591A0.3060901@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 08:14:08 -0500
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [libvirt] Libvirt debug API
References: <4BBF2E93.3020508@redhat.com>
	<20100409142717.GA11875@redhat.com>	<4BD09947.7060207@codemonkey.ws>	<20100423102831.GA17700@redhat.com>	<4BD1A361.6040702@codemonkey.ws>	<20100423142158.GD17700@redhat.com>
	<4BD1E80C.30402@codemonkey.ws> <4BD456CC.2020306@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BD456CC.2020306@redhat.com>
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: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: Libvirt <libvir-list@redhat.com>, Jiri Denemark <jdenemar@redhat.com>, Chris Lalancette <clalance@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 04/25/2010 09:50 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 04/23/2010 09:33 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>> This is a different ambiguity, about the semantic results of the 
>>> commands,
>>> where as I'm refering to the execution order. If I look at a libvirt 
>>> log
>>> file and see a set of JSON commands logged, I want to know that this 
>>> ordering
>>> from the logs, was indeed the same as order in which qemu processed 
>>> them. If
>>> you have two separate monitor connection you can't be sure of the 
>>> order of
>>> execution. It is key for our bug troubleshooting that given a 
>>> libvirt log
>>> file, we can replay the JSON commands again and get the same 
>>> results. Two
>>> monitor connections is just increasing complexity of code without any
>>> tangible benefit.
>>
>> I think you're assuming direct access to the second monitor?  I'm not 
>> suggesting that.  I'm suggesting that libvirt is still the one 
>> submitting commands to the second monitor and that it submits those 
>> commands in lock step.
>>
>
> What about protocol extensions?  For instance, pretend libvirt doesn't 
> support async messages, what would it do when it receives one from the 
> user's monitor?

Protocol extensions could not be supported in this model.  I agree, 
that's unfortunate.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori