From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36394C43457 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 13:50:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA2A72074F for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 13:50:56 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="cNbq4pBw" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org CA2A72074F Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:45006 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kRyE3-0002jV-Um for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 09:50:55 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:52508) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kRyDF-0001kZ-0o for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 09:50:05 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([216.205.24.124]:58289) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kRyDD-0000ji-6x for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 09:50:04 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1602510602; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=CVZY04nvOE1qgvoPm3COFlRUQxgDmu2OY51x1jomjxk=; b=cNbq4pBwG3JxaERclQVjPWQbgOMwBAThxB298CB0lh1uNO44NDmh/kp6XmdwmdLRExyZlh TgJqIrekP9nM0WTx3VKv+Xx3pJ6L0TPZnwwGFb6bOMVUYrmJaJrJb3k3xO++I90DsUZriS NHk9Rg7CHsHNMMzpS9yrx2B01vLAcJ8= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-251-IcgQ_j-nMbChNJ-J1kGs7A-1; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 09:50:00 -0400 X-MC-Unique: IcgQ_j-nMbChNJ-J1kGs7A-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 540D518A8221; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 13:49:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from thuth.remote.csb (ovpn-114-60.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.114.60]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C6BF5C22B; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 13:49:49 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 02/13] qtest: Reintroduce qtest_qmp_receive To: Paolo Bonzini , Maxim Levitsky , qemu-devel@nongnu.org References: <20201006123904.610658-1-mlevitsk@redhat.com> <20201006123904.610658-3-mlevitsk@redhat.com> <3dd3b467-6784-470c-cbfb-b7baf611abde@redhat.com> From: Thomas Huth Message-ID: Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 15:49:48 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=thuth@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.205.24.124; envelope-from=thuth@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/10/11 23:52:29 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Fam Zheng , Laurent Vivier , =?UTF-8?Q?Daniel_P=2e_Berrang=c3=a9?= , Eduardo Habkost , qemu-block@nongnu.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Jason Wang , =?UTF-8?Q?Philippe_Mathieu-Daud=c3=a9?= , Markus Armbruster , John Snow , Stefan Berger Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On 12/10/2020 15.47, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 12/10/20 13:14, Thomas Huth wrote: >>> +/** >>> + * qtest_qmp_receive: >>> + * @s: #QTestState instance to operate on. >>> + * >>> + * Reads a QMP message from QEMU and returns the response. >>> + * Buffers all the events received meanwhile, until a >>> + * call to qtest_qmp_eventwait >>> + */ >>> +QDict *qtest_qmp_receive(QTestState *s); >> Re-introducing qtest_qmp_receive() with different behavior than before will >> likely make backports of other later patches a pain, and might also break >> other patches that use this function but are not merged yet. Could you >> please use a different name for this function instead? Maye >> qtest_qmp_receive_buffered() or something like that? > > We chose to use the same name because the new version generally is the > one you want and, except for the handling of events, is exactly the same > as before. In other words, I'm treating the new semantics more as a > bugfix than a feature. > > The only trap that backports of later patches could fall into is if they > want to look at events, but it would be caught easily because the test > would fail. Ok, thanks for the explanation! ... but I think it might be good to have this information in the patch description, though. Thomas