From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
To: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu list <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>,
agl@us.ibm.com, Amit Shah <amit.shah@redhat.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] qerror: Add a new MACHINE_STOPPED error message
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 14:37:54 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4C781412.6080303@codemonkey.ws> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100827162413.0235bcd0@doriath>
On 08/27/2010 02:24 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
>
>> I don't see how 0.13.0 is going to get releases with anything but the
>> current behavior. It's unfortunate but we're too delayed and can't
>> afford a change like this this late in the game.
>>
>> In terms of the stable branch, the least disruptive thing would be a
>> timeout.
>>
> Okay.
>
>
>>> I think we have agreed on the internal interfaces approach. My only
>>> concern is whether this will conflict when extending the wire protocol
>>> (eg. adding new arguments to existing commands). Not a problem if the
>>> C API is not stable, of course.
>>>
>>>
>> We don't do that. It's a recipe for disaster. QEMU isn't written in
>> Python and if we try to module our interfaces are if we were a Python
>> library, we're destined to fail.
>>
> You mean we don't do simple protocol extensions?
>
> So, if we need an new argument to an existing command, we add a new
> command instead? Just because QEMU is not written in Python?
>
Because it's too easy to get it wrong in QEMU. Here's the rationale.
If I can't trivially call a QMP function in C, then I'm not going to use
QMP functions within QEMU. I'm not going to create an embedded JSON
string just to call a function with three integer arguments.
Yes, if we need to do that, we can create a C API that both the QMP
interface uses and we also use internally but why? All that does is
introduce the chance that the C API will have more features than the QMP
interface.
If we don't use these functions in QEMU, then how do we know that these
functions have reasonable semantics? This is exactly the problem we
suffer today. We have internal APIs that do reasonable things but
everything that deals with QMP is a special case. That creates too many
opportunities to get things wrong.
I think it's a vitally important requirement that all future QMP
functions have direct mappings to a C interface. The long term goal
should be for that interface to be used by all of the command line
arguments, SDL, and the human monitor. If those things only relied on a
single API and we exposed that API via QMP, than we would have an
extremely useful interface.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-08-27 19:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-08-27 5:27 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 0/3] virtio-balloon: Don't wait indefinitely for guest response Amit Shah
2010-08-27 5:27 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 1/3] balloon: Don't try fetching info if guest is unresponsive Amit Shah
2010-08-27 5:27 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 2/3] qerror: Add a new MACHINE_STOPPED error message Amit Shah
2010-08-27 9:29 ` [Qemu-devel] " Daniel P. Berrange
2010-08-27 12:39 ` Anthony Liguori
2010-08-27 12:58 ` Daniel P. Berrange
2010-08-27 13:59 ` Markus Armbruster
2010-08-27 14:15 ` Luiz Capitulino
2010-08-27 14:59 ` Anthony Liguori
2010-08-27 15:33 ` Daniel P. Berrange
2010-08-27 15:45 ` Anthony Liguori
2010-08-27 16:08 ` Luiz Capitulino
2010-08-27 19:02 ` Anthony Liguori
2010-08-27 19:24 ` Luiz Capitulino
2010-08-27 19:37 ` Anthony Liguori [this message]
2010-08-27 20:58 ` Luiz Capitulino
2010-08-30 14:52 ` Should QMP be RPC to internal C interfaces? (was: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] qerror: Add a new MACHINE_STOPPED error message) Markus Armbruster
2010-08-30 15:28 ` [Qemu-devel] Re: Should QMP be RPC to internal C interfaces? Anthony Liguori
2010-08-30 15:38 ` Anthony Liguori
2010-08-30 16:16 ` Luiz Capitulino
2010-08-30 16:26 ` Anthony Liguori
2010-08-31 12:48 ` Markus Armbruster
2010-08-31 12:58 ` Luiz Capitulino
2010-08-31 13:05 ` Anthony Liguori
2010-08-31 8:47 ` Markus Armbruster
2010-08-31 13:03 ` Anthony Liguori
2010-08-28 0:52 ` [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] qerror: Add a new MACHINE_STOPPED error message Amit Shah
2010-08-30 8:30 ` Markus Armbruster
2010-08-30 13:06 ` Anthony Liguori
2010-08-30 15:01 ` Markus Armbruster
2010-08-30 19:17 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Disable virtio-balloon memory stats interface Adam Litke
2010-08-31 3:42 ` [Qemu-devel] " Amit Shah
2010-09-08 10:57 ` Amit Shah
2010-08-27 5:27 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 3/3] balloon: Don't try fetching info if machine is stopped Amit Shah
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4C781412.6080303@codemonkey.ws \
--to=anthony@codemonkey.ws \
--cc=agl@us.ibm.com \
--cc=amit.shah@redhat.com \
--cc=armbru@redhat.com \
--cc=lcapitulino@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).