From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MKy6G-0006mx-KD for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:23:32 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MKy6B-0006hY-Vs for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:23:32 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=42618 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MKy6B-0006hG-Q8 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:23:27 -0400 Received: from mail-ew0-f211.google.com ([209.85.219.211]:60844) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MKy6B-0006GX-D6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:23:27 -0400 Received: by ewy7 with SMTP id 7so4249745ewy.34 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 2009 10:23:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4A4791D9.2050400@redhat.com> References: <4A40DFCE.5050008@codemonkey.ws> <20090623135958.660903e1@doriath> <4A412135.2060804@us.ibm.com> <4A435F09.7050702@redhat.com> <20090625161143.01b56eea@doriath> <4A4492FD.4040704@redhat.com> <20090626094224.GE28206@redhat.com> <20090627125833.22d3cc9f@doriath> <4A4791D9.2050400@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:23:25 +0200 Message-ID: <5b31733c0906281023n637cd3eax60d14bbe618f63ec@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 08/11] QMP: Port balloon command From: Filip Navara Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Avi Kivity Cc: Anthony Liguori , ehabkost@redhat.com, jan.kiszka@siemens.com, dlaor@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Luiz Capitulino On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 06/27/2009 06:58 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote: >> >> =A0So, IMHO both solutions (QMP and JSON) solves the problem and I >> would work on either one. I just would like that Anthony and Avi >> get in agreement, because the project will fail if it becomes >> one more difference between qemu and qemu-kvm. >> > > There's no danger of a diverging implementation in this case since no one= is > proposing to have different monitor protocols. =A0We just need to find th= e > best protocol. =A0Anthony's looking for minimal churn for the existing mo= nitor > command set and for libvirt, while I am considering the additional effort > for new commands and for new clients. I'm with Avi on this issue, but I will be happy as long as the protocol is precisely described and extensible for future. Moreover I believe that converting the current code to use a new function like monitor_print_data could be done now even without knowing the exact details of the on-wire protocol. The monitor_print_data function could be then adjusted to understand the protocol specifics and emit the data accordingly. >=A0It really isn't very complicated, and > the thread only got so long because the topic is relatively simple. =A0Po= st an > RFC and a mile-long patchset about changing TCG to SSA form, and see how = you > get no replies. I wouldn't even dare to push the SSA patch... Mile-long doesn't describe it precisely enough. Imagine it was applied to all the targets. F. target-arm/translate.c | 3846 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------= ---- tcg/tcg.c | 327 +++- tcg/tcg.h | 2 +- tcg/tcg-op.h | 1614 ++++++++++++------- 4 files changed, 3483 insertions(+), 2306 deletions(-)