From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:51915) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1STylM-00065X-7W for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 May 2012 13:08:52 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1STylK-00011a-El for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 May 2012 13:08:47 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:43594) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1STylK-00011A-6E for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 May 2012 13:08:46 -0400 Message-ID: <4FB13B94.4070903@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 19:06:28 +0200 From: Michal Privoznik MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1336763987-10920-1-git-send-email-lcapitulino@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <1336763987-10920-1-git-send-email-lcapitulino@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/2]: qemu-ga: make shutdown & suspend synchronous List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Luiz Capitulino Cc: mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 11.05.2012 21:19, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > The main motivation for this series is fixing two possible race conditions > in the guest-suspend-* API due to the complexity that arose from the way > we handle terminated children processes today. Full details in the first > patch. > > This series applies on top of my two other qemu-ga series submitted > previously: > > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2012-05/msg00999.html > > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2012-05/msg01507.html > > qapi-schema-guest.json | 56 ++++++++++------ > qapi/qmp-core.h | 10 ++- > qapi/qmp-dispatch.c | 8 ++- > qapi/qmp-registry.c | 4 +- > qemu-ga.c | 40 ++++++------ > qga/commands-posix.c | 162 ++++++++++++++++++---------------------------- > qga/guest-agent-core.h | 4 ++ > scripts/qapi-commands.py | 14 +++- > 8 files changed, 154 insertions(+), 144 deletions(-) > Okay, this is definitely an enhancement and fix of bogus implementation. One thing that I'd like to ask is - how can user distinguish between these implementations. I am asking basically from libvirt POV. Because if I assume I am dealing with the previous implementation and thus waiting for the {'return':{}} before I can return form an API, but the GA actually uses the new implementation I will block endlessly. Thanks, Michal