On Fri, 06 May 2011 11:08:08 +0200 Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Blue Swirl <blauwir...@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Luiz Capitulino <lcapitul...@redhat.com> > > wrote: > >> On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 09:33:15 +0300 > >> Blue Swirl <blauwir...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 1:40 AM, Luiz Capitulino <lcapitul...@redhat.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > This series introduces the inject-nmi command for QMP, which sends an > >>> > NMI to _all_ guest's CPUs. > >>> > > >>> > Also note that this series changes the human monitor nmi command to use > >>> > the QMP implementation, which means that it now has a DIFFERENT > >>> > behavior. > >>> > Please, check patch 3/3 for details. > >>> > >>> As discussed earlier, please change the QMP version for future > >>> expandability so that instead of single command 'inject-nmi', 'inject' > >>> takes parameter 'nmi'. HMP command 'nmi' can remain for now, but > >>> 'inject' should be added. > >> > >> I'm not sure I agree with this, because we risky overloading 'inject' the > >> same way we did with the 'change' command. > >> > >> What's 'inject' supposed to do in the future? > > > > Inject other IRQs, for example inject nmi could become an alias to > > something like > > inject /apic@fee00000:l1int > > which would be a shorthand for > > raise /apic@fee00000:l1int > > lower /apic@fee00000:l1int > > > > I think we only need a registration framework for IRQs and other signals. > > Yes, we could use nicer infrastructure for modeling IRQs. No, we > shouldn't reject Lai's work because it doesn't get us there. Perfect is > the enemy of good. > > Pick one: > > 1. We take inject-nmi now. Should we get a more general inject command > like the one you envisage later, we can deprecate inject-nmi, and remove > it after a suitable grace time. Big deal. We get the special problem > solved now, without really compromising future solutions for the general > problem. We don't even need to drop it, we just call the new one 'inject' or something like it and we're set (internally we could re-write 'inject-nmi' to use 'inject' in the future). > 2. We reject inject-nmi now. The itch Lai tries to scratch remains > unscratched until we get a more general inject command. > > 2a. Rejection "motivates" Lai to solve the general problem[*]. Or maybe > it motivates somebody else. We get the general problem solved sooner. > And maybe I get a pony for my birthday, too. > > 2b. The general problem remains unsolved along with the special problem. > We get nothing. > > > [*] He's been trying to give us NMI injection via QMP for five months, > so what's a few months more to him. >
