Anthony Liguori wrote:
Hollis Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 13:34 -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Right now only one monitor device can be enabled at a time. In
order to support
asynchronous notification of events, I would like to introduce a
'wait' command
that waits for an event to occur. This implies that we need an
additional
monitor session to allow commands to still be executed while waiting
for an
asynchronous notification.
Was there any consensus reached in this thread? I'm once again looking
for ways to communicate qemu watchdog events to libvirt.
We can do multiple monitors as a debugging tool, but to support
events, a proper machine monitor mode is a prerequisite.
The real requirement is that events are obtainable via a single
communication channel instead of requiring two separate communication
channels. Internal implementation will look at lot like these patches.
The reasoning for requiring a single channel is that coordinating
between the two channels is expected to be prohibitively difficult.
To have a single channel, we need a machine mode. It cannot be done
in a human readable fashion.
I think this summarizes the consensus we reached. I don't agree fully
with the above but I'm okay with it.
If you don't agree with it, it isn't a consensus.
Would you agree Avi?
It represents my views fairly accurately. I'm not convinced that you
can't to event notifications without machine mode, but on the other hand
I do think introducing machine mode and layering notifications on top of
that is the best way to proceed, so I can't complain.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
Libvir-list mailing list
Libvir-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
