We ask patch submitters to cc: subject matter experts for review. You
did. When such patches touch the QAPI schema, it's best to cc the qapi
schema maintainers (Eric Blake and me) as well, because we can't require
all subject matter experts to be fluent in the QAPI schema language and
conventions. I found this one more or less by chance.
Jens Freimann <jfreim...@redhat.com> writes:
> This event is sent to let libvirt know that VIRTIO_NET_F_STANDBY
> feature was not negotiated during virtio feature negotiation. If this
> event is received it means any primary devices hotplugged before
> this were were never really added to QEMU devices.
Too many negations for my poor old brain to process.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jens Freimann <jfreim...@redhat.com>
> ---
> qapi/net.json | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/qapi/net.json b/qapi/net.json
> index 728990f4fb..8c5f3f1fb2 100644
> --- a/qapi/net.json
> +++ b/qapi/net.json
> @@ -737,3 +737,19 @@
> ##
> { 'command': 'announce-self', 'boxed': true,
> 'data' : 'AnnounceParameters'}
> +
> +##
> +# @FAILOVER_NEGOTIATED:
> +#
> +# Emitted when VIRTIO_NET_F_STANDBY was negotiated during feature negotiation
> +#
> +# Since: 4.2
> +#
> +# Example:
> +#
> +# <- { "event": "FAILOVER_NEGOTIATED",
> +# "data": {} }
> +#
> +##
> +{ 'event': 'FAILOVER_NEGOTIATED',
> + 'data': {} }
The commit message at least tries to explain intended use. The doc
string does not. Should it?
