From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43584) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d6ddW-0006Do-Dj for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 05 May 2017 09:51:12 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d6ddQ-0007Hi-I4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 05 May 2017 09:51:10 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:49633) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d6ddQ-0007GK-AR for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 05 May 2017 09:51:04 -0400 From: Markus Armbruster References: <20170118160332.13390-1-marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> <87mvaszbsu.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <877f1viir6.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 15:50:55 +0200 In-Reply-To: (=?utf-8?Q?=22Marc-Andr=C3=A9?= Lureau"'s message of "Fri, 05 May 2017 12:54:01 +0000") Message-ID: <877f1vcszk.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 00/25] qmp: add async command type List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: =?utf-8?Q?Marc-Andr=C3=A9?= Lureau Cc: Kevin Wolf , John Snow , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Stefan Hajnoczi , kraxel@redhat.com Marc-Andr=C3=A9 Lureau writes: > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 4:35 PM Markus Armbruster wrot= e: > >> Marc-Andr=C3=A9 Lureau writes: >> >> >> One of the most important maintainer duties is saying "no". It's also >> >> one of the least fun duties. >> >> >> >> >> > It doesn't sound like a "no" :) >> >> Well, it's as close to "no" as you can get in a situation that's going >> to change! It's a straight "no" for the current situation, and a >> "maybe" for a future situation that will be different in ways we don't >> yet understand. >> >> I'm *not* encouraging you to pursue asynchronous QMP commands. In fact, >> I never did, at least not knowingly. It's your decision. All I offer >> is what I offer to all patch submitters: my best effort at a fair >> hearing. > > My understanding is that you are mainly against the new client 'async' > capability. We disagree on the added complexity for the client though, as > in my opinion it already exists today in some hidden form. So would you > revisit the conclusion if the client 'async' capability is removed? The > series would still bring internal async capability, fix screendump bug and > do a bit of cleanup. No, I'm concerned about the additional *concepts*. How exactly they're exposed in QMP is secondary.