On Wed, 15 May 2013 10:10:37 +0800 Wenchao Xia <xiaw...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 于 2013-5-6 21:22, Luiz Capitulino 写道: > > On Mon, 06 May 2013 10:09:43 +0800 > > Wenchao Xia <xiaw...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > >> 于 2013-5-3 10:51, Wenchao Xia 写道: > >>> 于 2013-5-2 20:02, Luiz Capitulino 写道: > >>>> On Thu, 02 May 2013 10:05:08 +0800 > >>>> Wenchao Xia <xiaw...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> 于 2013-4-30 3:05, Luiz Capitulino 写道: > >>>>>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 16:46:57 +0200 > >>>>>> Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 05:31:15PM +0800, Wenchao Xia wrote: > >>>>>>>> @@ -2586,10 +2585,12 @@ void do_info_snapshots(Monitor *mon, const > >>>>>>>> QDict *qdict) > >>>>>>>> } > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> if (total > 0) { > >>>>>>>> - monitor_printf(mon, "%s\n", bdrv_snapshot_dump(buf, > >>>>>>>> sizeof(buf), NULL)); > >>>>>>>> + bdrv_snapshot_dump(NULL); > >>>>>>>> + monitor_printf(mon, "\n"); > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Luiz: any issue with mixing monitor_printf(mon) and > >>>>>>> monitor_vprintf(cur_mon) calls? I guess there was a reason for > >>>>>>> explicitly passing mon instead of relying on cur_mon. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> where are they being mixed? > >>>>>> > >>>>> bdrv_snapshot_dump() used a global variable "cur_mon" inside, > >>>>> instead > >>>>> of let caller pass in a explicit montior* "mon", I guess that is the > >>>>> question. > >>>> > >>>> I'd have to see the code to tell, but yes, what Stefan described is the > >>>> best practice for the Monitor. > >>>> > >>> I think this would not be a problem until qemu wants more than one > >>> human monitor console, and then we may require a data structure to tell > >>> where to output the string: stdout, *mon, or even stderr, and > >>> error_printf() also need to be changed. > >>> > >> Luiz, what is your idea? I'd like to respin v2 if no issues for it. > > > > As I said before, I'd have to see the code to tell. But answering your > > comment, > > the code does support multiple monitors. > > > Hi Luiz, > Sorry to ask again, do you think method above is OK now, waiting for > your confirm. Can you point me to the code in question?