On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 08:47:46 -0200
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosa...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 09:20:26AM -0200, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 14:36:08 +0800
> > Lai Jiangshan <la...@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> >
> > > +SQMP
> > > +inject_nmi
> > > +----------
> > > +
> > > +Inject an NMI on the given CPU (x86 only).
> > > +
> > > +Arguments:
> > > +
> > > +- "cpu_index": the index of the CPU to be injected NMI (json-int)
> > > +
> > > +Example:
> > > +
> > > +-> { "execute": "inject_nmi", "arguments": { "cpu_index": 0 } }
> > > +<- { "return": {} }
> > > +
> > > +EQMP
> > > +
> >
> > Avi, Anthony, can you please review this? Do we expect some kind of ack from
> > the guest? Do we expect it respond in some way?
>
> Looks good to me. Don't except any response from the guest.
>
> > Also note that the current series defines only one error condition: invalid
> > cpu index. Can this fail in other ways?
> > --
>
> Not really. An NMI can be pending already (which means the current
> command has no effect), but i don't see the need to report that.
Ok, thanks for the feedback Marcelo.
>
