Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> writes: > Alex Bennée <alex.ben...@linaro.org> writes: > >> Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> writes: >> >>> Mario Fleischmann <mario.fleischm...@lauterbach.com> writes: >>> >>>> Apologies for the line wrapping in yesterday's answer. Should be fixed now. >>>> >>>> On 08.04.2025 09:00, Markus Armbruster wrote: > > [...] > >>>>> What about providing the MCD interface as a separate QMP-like protocol? >>>>> It gets its own QAPI schema, just like for qemu-ga. Simplifies >>>>> compiling it out when not needed. >>>>> >>>>> It gets its own socket, just like the GDB stub. Might reduce >>>>> interference between debugging and QMP. >>>>> >>>>> Thoughts? Alex, Philippe, care to chime in? >>>> >>>> Sound reasonable to me. Keeping in mind the size of generated QAPI code, >>>> an option to `./configure [...] --enable-mcd` is definitely advisable. >>> >>> Alex, Philippe? >> >> When I spoke to Mario at DVCon last year I liked the idea of re-using >> QMP instead of inventing yet another RPC interface for QEMU. QMP >> certainly has nicer properties than the gdbstub which has a very >> "organic" and "serial" feel to it. >> >> Are you suggesting we re-use the machinery but use an entirely separate >> socket with just the MCD namespace in it? I don't see that being a >> problem as long as we can test it properly in the CI. > > Yes. > > "Keep them separate" is only a gut feeling, though. While I pay > attention to my gut feelings, I know they can be wrong. I am soliciting > opinions.
I forgot to add isn't the flexibility of the QMP API something we need to handle for single binary anyway? -- Alex Bennée Virtualisation Tech Lead @ Linaro
