On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 12:08:23 +0200 Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Am 29.05.2013 um 19:51 hat Luiz Capitulino geschrieben: > > On Wed, 29 May 2013 10:13:42 +0200 > > Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > Am 28.05.2013 um 18:07 hat Eric Blake geschrieben: > > > > On 05/28/2013 09:27 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > > > > The QMP version is flagged with a __org.qemu.debug- prefix in order to > > > > > reinforce the statement that qemu-io is for testing and debugging > > > > > only, > > > > > with no API guarantees. > > > > > > > > Correct use of naming conventions. > > > > > > > > Hmm, I wonder if the recent addition of an 'abort' action to > > > > 'transaction' should be renamed __org.qemu.debug-abort, to make it > > > > obvious that it is another case of a QMP command useful mainly for > > > > testing, and not real-life use. > > > > > > Makes sense to me. > > > > > > But first I'd like to get Luiz's ack for this, because I think I'm the > > > first one to use an __org.qemu prefix, and I'm the first one trying to > > > introduce a QMP command without API stability. > > > > I think that should be fine. However, it's not a perfect match for QMP > > as you don't expect mngt to use it anytime soon and that the command's > > syntax is not QMP friendly: > > > > > { "execute": "__org.qemu.debug-qemu-io-command", "arguments": > > > { "device": "ide0-hd0", "command": "write -P 0x12 4M 512k" } } > > > > What about adding a HMP-only command (the good old way) and use it > > through human-monitor-command? > > > > IMO, this matches better your current use-case and the API instability > > of the command. > > Works for me, but wasn't the plan to make HMP purely a wrapper around > QMP? Then adding HMP-only commands would be counterproductive. So I > assumed that QMP is a must. I didn't even know that the code still > allows you to have HMP-only commands. :-) Yes, the long term plan is to have all HMP commands calling QMP counterparts. But the command you're adding doesn't fit QMP's design very well. I suggested adding it as HMP-only for now because it's the simplest thing to do for this very specific case. If more test-only non-QMP-friendly commands appear, then we'll need to think of a more general solution. Now, something has just occurred to me. Why isn't it a good idea having this command as a stable API? Wouldn't it be a good idea to allow out-of-tree test tools like autotest to use it? > So you prefer a respin with the QMP part dropped? Yes.