From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:40533) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SWTIt-0002NS-9v for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 21 May 2012 10:09:47 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SWTIk-00068x-Hq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 21 May 2012 10:09:42 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:38305) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SWTIk-00068g-AH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 21 May 2012 10:09:34 -0400 Message-ID: <4FBA4C98.20109@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 16:09:28 +0200 From: Kevin Wolf MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4FB6821A.1080902@redhat.com> <20120521105901.4fbe7363@doriath.home> In-Reply-To: <20120521105901.4fbe7363@doriath.home> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Proposal for extensions of block job commands in QEMU 1.2 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Luiz Capitulino Cc: aliguori@us.ibm.com, Stefan Hajnoczi , qemu-devel , Federico Simoncelli , Paolo Bonzini , Eric Blake Am 21.05.2012 15:59, schrieb Luiz Capitulino: > On Fri, 18 May 2012 19:08:42 +0200 > Paolo Bonzini wrote: > >> Modified QMP commands >> ===================== > > As we have discussed on the ML, we're not going to extend QMP commands. > > I understand your reasoning, and since the beginning I thought this was > something useful to do, but we've already settled for not doing this. > > I also think that we shouldn't have exceptions, as in practice this means > we're extending commands anyway. So either, we do it or we don't. What's the reason for disallowing command extensions? I'd find it rather silly to maintain ten different functions that all do basically the same, just that some of them have more optional parameters than others... Kevin