On 03/01/2011 08:22 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Certainly good questions, but let me suggest not taking an HMP command
and not a QMP commans because of interface concerns.
My goal for 0.15 is to convert HMP to be implemented in terms of QMP.
To do that, a bunch of new QMP commands are needed. They all won't be
perfect but i'd rather support a bad QMP command forever than to
continue to/ have people rely on HMP.
Okay, makes sense. So we should reject patches that add new HMP commands
without adding a QMP counterpart.
Definitely. We essentially are supporting HMP today just as much as QMP
but HMP is much harder to support (no standard way to interpret
input/output/errors).
I agree that the guest should control the
emulated drive cache at runtime and we probably don't want to allow
toggling that from the host - it could be dangerous :).
Good point. That's a NACK for this patch as long as we haven't separated
WCE from the host cache setting.
Doesn't make a difference for this one, though, because it's NACKed anyway.
Kevin
PS: Anthony, is there a specific reason why you started sending HTML emails?
Because I was stuck using my phone because of bad hotel wireless :-/
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
