On Mon, 14 May 2012 19:06:28 +0200 Michal Privoznik <mpriv...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 11.05.2012 21:19, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > > The main motivation for this series is fixing two possible race conditions > > in the guest-suspend-* API due to the complexity that arose from the way > > we handle terminated children processes today. Full details in the first > > patch. > > > > This series applies on top of my two other qemu-ga series submitted > > previously: > > > > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2012-05/msg00999.html > > > > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2012-05/msg01507.html > > > > qapi-schema-guest.json | 56 ++++++++++------ > > qapi/qmp-core.h | 10 ++- > > qapi/qmp-dispatch.c | 8 ++- > > qapi/qmp-registry.c | 4 +- > > qemu-ga.c | 40 ++++++------ > > qga/commands-posix.c | 162 > > ++++++++++++++++++---------------------------- > > qga/guest-agent-core.h | 4 ++ > > scripts/qapi-commands.py | 14 +++- > > 8 files changed, 154 insertions(+), 144 deletions(-) > > > > Okay, this is definitely an enhancement and fix of bogus implementation. > One thing that I'd like to ask is - how can user distinguish between > these implementations. I am asking basically from libvirt POV. > Because if I assume I am dealing with the previous implementation and > thus waiting for the {'return':{}} before I can return form an API, but > the GA actually uses the new implementation I will block endlessly. There's no way to distinguish. It's a bug to wait for an OK response for the guest-shutdown and guest-suspend-*, because a response may not been sent even before this series (and this is correctly documented).
