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.
