On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 02:46:07PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 10/2/20 11:27 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > savevm, loadvm and delvm are some of the few HMP commands that have never
> > been converted to use QMP. The reasons for the lack of conversion are
> > that they blocked execution of the event thread, and the semantics
> > around choice of disks were ill-defined.
> >
> > Despite this downside, however, libvirt and applications using libvirt
> > have used these commands for as long as QMP has existed, via the
> > "human-monitor-command" passthrough command. IOW, while it is clearly
> > desirable to be able to fix the problems, they are not a blocker to
> > all real world usage.
> >
> > Meanwhile there is a need for other features which involve adding new
> > parameters to the commands. This is possible with HMP passthrough, but
> > it provides no reliable way for apps to introspect features, so using
> > QAPI modelling is highly desirable.
> >
> > This patch thus introduces new snapshot-{load,save,delete} commands to
> > QMP that are intended to replace the old HMP counterparts. The new
> > commands are given different names, because they will be using the new
> > QEMU job framework and thus will have diverging behaviour from the HMP
> > originals. It would thus be misleading to keep the same name.
> >
> > While this design uses the generic job framework, the current impl is
> > still blocking. The intention that the blocking problem is fixed later.
> > None the less applications using these new commands should assume that
> > they are asynchronous and thus wait for the job status change event to
> > indicate completion.
> >
> > In addition to using the job framework, the new commands require the
> > caller to be explicit about all the block device nodes used in the
> > snapshot operations, with no built-in default heuristics in use.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > +++ b/tests/qemu-iotests/group
> > @@ -291,6 +291,7 @@
> > 277 rw quick
> > 279 rw backing quick
> > 280 rw migration quick
> > +310 rw quick
> > 281 rw quick
> > 282 rw img quick
> > 283 auto quick
>
> What's wrong with sorted order? I get the renumbering to appease a merge
> conflict, but it also requires rearrangement ;)
This file is a conflict magnet when rebasing to git master if you just
append to the end of it. So I picked a number many bigger than current
max, and stuffed the new entry in the middle to avoid rebase conflicts.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
