On Wed, 6 May 2015 10:33:55 -0300 Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 08:59:56AM -0400, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > > On Wed, 6 May 2015 07:38:53 -0300 > > Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 09:32:58AM +0200, Michael Mueller wrote: > > > > On Tue, 5 May 2015 10:14:32 -0300 > > > > Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 04:53:18PM +0200, Michael Mueller wrote: > > > > > > The HMP command info cpus now displays the CPU model name and the > > > > > > backing accelerator if part of the CPUState. > > > > > > > > > > > > (qemu) info cpus > > > > > > * CPU #0: (halted) model=2827-ga2 accel=kvm thread_id=1679 > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Michael Mueller <m...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > > > > Acked-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntrae...@de.ibm.com> > > > > > > > > > > Do we really need this? I mean: I expect the amount of CPU data we > > > > > provide to QMP clients to grow a lot in the near future, but that > > > > > doesn't mean HMP users need all that data to be printed by "info > > > > > cpus". > > > > > > > > Where do you see the limit of what is worth to be shown an what not. > > > > I personally use "info cpus" less then sporadic but already got a > > > > comment > > > > internally on that information being worthwhile to be shown. > > > > > > I really don't know, but I think we shouldn't add stuff to HMP unless we > > > have a good reason. For each new piece of data in HMP I would like to at > > > least see the description of a real use case that justifies adding it to > > > HMP and not just implementing a simple script on top of QMP. > > > > > > For accel info we already have "info kvm" that is not ideal but is > > > enough for current use cases, isn't it? CPU model name information seems > > > to be more useful, but if it is just for debugging, people can just run > > > QMP query-cpus command. > > > > > > Luiz, what do you think? > > > > I don't see a problem with that. HMP is a debugging interface anyways. > > Actually, I think it's a good test-case for QMP having a high-level > > in-tree client (vs. qmp-shell, which is too low-level). > > > > If the problem is that a command is dumping too much information to > > the point of hurting usability, we can split the command or add a '-a' > > option or something like that. > > Thanks! If HMP is seen as a debugging interface, my main objections > aren't valid. > > That said, I would prefer to keep the command output cleaner and add > only the "model" field, as people can use "info kvm" for the accel info > by now. Ok, I buy that and will kick the accel name out again. Michael >
