qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 08/11] QMP: Asynchronous messages enable/disable


From: Anthony Liguori
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 08/11] QMP: Asynchronous messages enable/disable support
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:04:08 -0600
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091209 Fedora/3.0-4.fc12 Lightning/1.0pre Thunderbird/3.0

On 01/24/2010 04:34 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 01/22/2010 08:05 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 01/21/2010 03:09 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
This commit disables asynchronous messages by default and
introduces two new QMP commands: async_msg_enable and
async_msg_disable.

Each QMP Monitor has its own set of asynchronous messages,
so for example, if QEMU is run with two QMP Monitors async
messages setup in one of them doesn't affect the other.

To implement this design a bitmap is introduced to the
Monitor struct, each async message is represented by one bit.

Signed-off-by: Luiz Capitulino<address@hidden>

Ah, I see I was a little confused.

I'd suggest making async message masking an independent mechanism. Capabilities should strictly deal with protocol changes, not feature details.

For instance, protocol timestamps are something would reasonable considered a capability. Extended data types would be a capability.

Another way to look at it, is that if you're writing a client library, the capability negotiation should be entirely invisible to the end API user.


I agree with that, but we can look at async messages as a baseline protocol capability (thus no negotiation required), and the new command only enabled individual messages.

To be honest, I don't think there's really a need to mask individual messages. A client can always ignore messages it doesn't care about. There is no side effect of receiving a message so there is no functional implication of receiving messages you don't care about.

The only time it would matter is if we had a really high volume of messages. I'd suggest waiting until a message is introduced that could potentially have a high rate and then implement a mechanism to mask it. For now, it just adds unnecessary complexity.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]