[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] Transitioning from HMP to QMP for QEMU

From: Kevin Wolf
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Transitioning from HMP to QMP for QEMU
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 14:49:20 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111115 Thunderbird/8.0

Am 15.12.2011 14:39, schrieb Jan Kiszka:
> On 2011-12-15 14:38, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues wrote:
>> On 12/15/2011 11:33 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>>> Am 15.12.2011 14:18, schrieb Jan Kiszka:
>>>> On 2011-12-15 14:02, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>>>>> What is the status of QEMU's transition from HMP to the QMP interface?
>>>>> My current understanding is that QEMU provides new HMP commands for
>>>>> humans, but HMP is being phased out as an API.  Management tools
>>>>> should rely only on QMP for new commands.  That would mean new HMP
>>>>> commands are not guaranteed to produce backwards-compatible output
>>>>> because tools are not supposed to parse the output.
>>>>> On the libvirt side, new QEMU features should only be supported via
>>>>> the json monitor in the future (i.e. human monitor patches should not
>>>>> be sent/merged)?  Existing HMP commands will still need the human
>>>>> monitor support in order to handle old QEMU versions gracefully, but
>>>>> I'm thinking about new commands only.
>>>>> Does everyone agree on this?  I think this is an important discussion
>>>>> if we want our management interface to get better and more consistent
>>>>> in the future.
>>>> To phase out the classic HMP implementation, we need an internal
>>>> HMP-over-JSON wrapper (with tab expansion etc.) so that virtual console
>>>> and gdbstub monitors continue to benefit from new commands. Those
>>>> interfaces will stay for a long time, I'm sure.
>>> I think we're not talking about dropping HMP here, only about how long
>>> to support it as a stable API for management tools. I believe that we
>>> have been in a transitional phase for long enough now that we can start
>>> changing the output format of HMP commands without considering it an API
>>> breakage.
>> Yes, I've got the same impression. But while we are at it, forgive my 
>> naiveness, but wouldn't be worthwhile to consider dropping the human 
>> monitor in the long run?
> Surely not the interface (for virtual console & gdbstub), but the
> internal implementation I hope.

Isn't HMP implemented in terms of QMP these days?

And yes, strong NACK for removing the functionality.


reply via email to

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