From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=33695 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PwyW8-00039Q-Oh for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2011 10:08:10 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PwyRw-00030F-LO for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2011 10:03:52 -0500 Received: from mail-iy0-f173.google.com ([209.85.210.173]:47464) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PwyRw-00030B-HC for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2011 10:03:48 -0500 Received: by iym7 with SMTP id 7so5979410iym.4 for ; Tue, 08 Mar 2011 07:03:47 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4D764551.4000409@codemonkey.ws> Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 09:03:45 -0600 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/22] QAPI Round 1 References: <1299460984-15849-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com> <4D7500C8.1080101@codemonkey.ws> <4D760F2B.7030004@redhat.com> <4D7630BA.4010609@us.ibm.com> <4D763311.5030905@redhat.com> <4D763525.2030700@codemonkey.ws> <4D763674.8000600@redhat.com> <4D7638BE.60808@codemonkey.ws> <4D763A61.2020809@redhat.com> <4D763F76.2020003@codemonkey.ws> <4D7642C1.90604@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4D7642C1.90604@redhat.com> 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: Avi Kivity Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Luiz Capitulino , Michael D Roth , Adam Litke , Markus Armbruster On 03/08/2011 08:52 AM, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 03/08/2011 04:38 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> >> http://wiki.qemu.org/Features/QAPI/GuestAgent >> > > Nice. A couple of remarks. > > We may want to use a different way of separating the namespaces - > enacapsulation: > > { > 'command': 'guest-command', > arguments: { > 'command': 'read-file', > 'arguments': { > 'path': '/var/log/messages' > } > } > } > > This serves to decouple the two protocols, which may have different > support lifetimes (hopefully not). We could also have a more proper namespace in the protocol. Like: { 'execute': { 'namespace': 'guest', 'command': 'read-file' }, 'arguments': { 'path': '/var/log/messages' } } I'm not sure I see this as all that critical though. I sort of like the idea of it being transparent to the client whether a guest agent implements a command or QEMU does. > In addition to commands we may also implement a key-value store. A > large number of commands may be easy to implement using a single > key/value, and it's also easy to live migrate (key/values being stored > in but not understood by qemu). Do you mean the guest querying QEMU for key-values? QMP doesn't have a reverse direction RPC. It only has events which is one of the things that makes live migration work nicely. Regards, Anthony Liguori