qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 00/11] monitor: Split monitor.c in core/HMP/Q


From: Markus Armbruster
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 00/11] monitor: Split monitor.c in core/HMP/QMP/misc
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 16:22:24 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux)

Kevin Wolf <address@hidden> writes:

> monitor.c mixes a lot of different things in a single file: The core
> monitor infrastructure, HMP infrastrcture, QMP infrastructure, and the
> implementation of several HMP and QMP commands. Almost worse, struct
> Monitor mixes state for HMP, for QMP, and state actually shared between
> all monitors. monitor.c must be linked with a system emulator and even
> requires per-target compilation because some of the commands it
> implements access system emulator state.

Also: it's so fat it hasn't seen its feet in years.

> The reason why I care about this is that I'm working on a protoype for a
> storage daemon, which wants to use QMP (but probably not HMP) and
> obviously doesn't have any system emulator state. So I'm interested in
> some core monitor parts that can be linked to non-system-emulator tools.
>
> This series first creates separate structs MonitorQMP and MonitorHMP
> which inherit from Monitor, and then moves the associated infrastructure
> code into separate source files.
>
> While the split is probably not perfect,

It's not :)

>                                          I think it's an improvement of
> the current state even for QEMU proper,

It very much is!

There are a few issues to address, but nothing structural.  Looking
forward to v3.

>                                         and it's good enough so I can
> link my storage daemon against just monitor/core.o and monitor/qmp.o and
> get a useless QMP monitor that parses the JSON input and rejects
> everything as an unknown command.
>
> Next I'll try to teach it a subset of QMP commands that can actually be
> supported in a tool, but while there will be a few follow-up patches to
> achieve this, I don't expect that this work will bring up much that
> needs to be changed in the splitting process done in this series.



reply via email to

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