On Fri, 28 May 2010 00:20:08 +0200 Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@web.de> wrote:
> Luiz Capitulino wrote: > > On Sun, 23 May 2010 12:59:26 +0200 > > Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@web.de> wrote: > > > >> From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@siemens.com> > >> > >> Ported commands that are marked 'user_only' will not be considered for > >> QMP monitor sessions. This allows to implement new commands that do not > >> (yet) provide a sufficiently stable interface for QMP use (e.g. > >> device_show). > > > > This is fine for me, but two things I've been wondering: > > > > 1. Isn't a 'flags' struct member better? So that we can do (in the > > qemu-monitor.hx entry): > > > > .flags = MONITOR_USER_ONLY | MONITOR_HANDLER_ASYNC, > > > > I'm not suggesting this is an async handler, just exemplifying multiple > > flags. > > Yes, can refactor this. > > > > > 2. Getting QMP handlers right in the first time might be difficult, so > > we could have a way to mark them unstable. Maybe a different namespace > > which is only enabled at configure time with: > > > > --enable-qmp-unstable-commands > > > > If this were possible, we could have device_show and any command we > > aren't sure is QMP-ready working in QMP this way. > > Do you suggest this as an alternative to this patch? Or an extension > later on? I have no opinion on this yet, I would just like to know how > to proceed for this series. Both can be done worked later, as this is internal there's no problem in living with a simpler solution for a while.
