On (Fri) Mar 26 2010 [10:14:02], Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> > > > +
> > > > +VIRTIO_SERIAL
> > > > +-------------
> > >
> > > It should be VIRTIO_SERIAL_ADD.
> >
> > What about other events that VIRTIO_SERIAL generates?
>
> We don't address this problem currently, maybe an integration with qdev
> will do, but I have to think more about it.
So should I just keep it as VIRTIO_SERIAL for now? With new events also
riding on this one?
> > Should they have a different event by themselves?
>
> With the current code, yes. But would be good to avoid it until we have
> a proper solution.
>
> > Or should they ride on top of VIRTIO_SERIAL and mention different
> > 'operations' that caused the event?
>
> I'd prefer having a different name if it's a different event, at least
> this is how we've done it so far.
Erm, now I'm confused.
> > > > +
> > > > +- "result": The result of the operation {json-string}
> > > > + This is one of the following:
> > > > + "pass", "fail"
> > >
> > > "result" could be a boolean "success".
> >
> > OK; success/fail? Also, by boolean, do you mean the data type? How is
> > that represented?
>
> In JSON it's true/false. In our parser you can use '%i' with integers,
> undocumented, yes, sorry for that.
Oh ok; no problem.
Amit
