From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=57595 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PxJE1-0007pK-Lb for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2011 08:14:50 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PxJE0-0005nN-Dh for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2011 08:14:49 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:54806) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PxJE0-0005n9-35 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2011 08:14:48 -0500 Message-ID: <4D777D40.4020000@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 15:14:40 +0200 From: Avi Kivity 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> <4D764551.4000409@codemonkey.ws> <4D766B0E.9030908@redhat.com> <4D768134.9000006@codemonkey.ws> <4D773FAC.4090208@redhat.com> <4D777CD5.30403@codemonkey.ws> In-Reply-To: <4D777CD5.30403@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: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Stefan Hajnoczi , Markus Armbruster , Luiz Capitulino , Michael D Roth , Adam Litke On 03/09/2011 03:12 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 03/09/2011 02:51 AM, Avi Kivity wrote: >> On 03/08/2011 09:19 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >>>> Both the guest and the management agent (and both can listen for >>>> events). I don't see why guest->qemu RPC is problematic for >>>> migration - at least when qemu terminates it. >>> >>> >>> If it's terminated in QEMU, it's fine, but then it's not QMP >>> anymore. Let me think about whether there's a way to achieve this >>> without a guest->qemu RPC. >> >> Why not? >> >> { execute: 'write-keystore' arguments: { 'key': 'foo', 'value': 'bar' >> } } > > This is coming from the guest? Yes. > QMP doesn't do bidirectional RPC today. It could, but that is a > fundamental change in the protocol. > Could use a separate channel for talking to qemu. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function