On Thu, 26 May 2011 22:23:10 +0300 Blue Swirl <blauwir...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Luiz Capitulino <lcapitul...@redhat.com> writes: > > > >> On Fri, 6 May 2011 18:36:31 +0300 > >> Blue Swirl <blauwir...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > Blue Swirl <blauwir...@gmail.com> writes: > >>> > > >>> >> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Luiz Capitulino > >>> >> <lcapitul...@redhat.com> wrote: > >>> >>> On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 09:33:15 +0300 > >>> >>> Blue Swirl <blauwir...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> >>> > >>> >>>> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 1:40 AM, Luiz Capitulino > >>> >>>> <lcapitul...@redhat.com> wrote: > >>> >>>> > This series introduces the inject-nmi command for QMP, which sends > >>> >>>> > an > >>> >>>> > NMI to _all_ guest's CPUs. > >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> > Also note that this series changes the human monitor nmi command > >>> >>>> > to use > >>> >>>> > the QMP implementation, which means that it now has a DIFFERENT > >>> >>>> > behavior. > >>> >>>> > Please, check patch 3/3 for details. > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> As discussed earlier, please change the QMP version for future > >>> >>>> expandability so that instead of single command 'inject-nmi', > >>> >>>> 'inject' > >>> >>>> takes parameter 'nmi'. HMP command 'nmi' can remain for now, but > >>> >>>> 'inject' should be added. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> I'm not sure I agree with this, because we risky overloading 'inject' > >>> >>> the > >>> >>> same way we did with the 'change' command. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> What's 'inject' supposed to do in the future? > >>> >> > >>> >> Inject other IRQs, for example inject nmi could become an alias to > >>> >> something like > >>> >> inject /apic@fee00000:l1int > >>> >> which would be a shorthand for > >>> >> raise /apic@fee00000:l1int > >>> >> lower /apic@fee00000:l1int > >>> >> > >>> >> I think we only need a registration framework for IRQs and other > >>> >> signals. > >>> > > >>> > Yes, we could use nicer infrastructure for modeling IRQs. No, we > >>> > shouldn't reject Lai's work because it doesn't get us there. Perfect is > >>> > the enemy of good. > >>> > > >>> > Pick one: > >>> > > >>> > 1. We take inject-nmi now. Should we get a more general inject command > >>> > like the one you envisage later, we can deprecate inject-nmi, and remove > >>> > it after a suitable grace time. Big deal. We get the special problem > >>> > solved now, without really compromising future solutions for the general > >>> > problem. > >>> > > >>> > 2. We reject inject-nmi now. The itch Lai tries to scratch remains > >>> > unscratched until we get a more general inject command. > >>> > > >>> > 2a. Rejection "motivates" Lai to solve the general problem[*]. Or maybe > >>> > it motivates somebody else. We get the general problem solved sooner. > >>> > And maybe I get a pony for my birthday, too. > >>> > > >>> > 2b. The general problem remains unsolved along with the special problem. > >>> > We get nothing. > >>> > >>> 2c. Don't add full generic IRQ registration and aliases just now but > >>> handle 'inject' with only 'nmi'. That way we introduce no legacy > >>> baggage to the syntax. > >> > >> Can you give an example on how this is supposed to look like? > > > > No reply. When you demand a redesign to generalize a simple feature to > > something only you envisage, please explain what exactly you want. > > Documentation to stick into qmp-commands.hx would be a start. Here's > > the baseline from Luiz, for your editing convenience. > > > > > > inject-nmi > > ---------- > > > > Inject an NMI on guest's CPUs. > > > > Arguments: None. > > > > Example: > > > > -> { "execute": "inject-nmi" } > > <- { "return": {} } > > > > Note: inject-nmi is only supported for x86 guest currently, it will > > returns "Unsupported" error for non-x86 guest. > > I think I explained it many times, but let's try again. > > inject > ---------- > > Inject a signal on guest machine. > > Arguments: signal name. > > Example: > > -> { "execute": "inject", > "arguments": { "signal": "nmi" } } > <- { "return": {} } > > -> { "execute": "inject", > "arguments": { "signal": "/apic@fee00000:l1int" } } > <- { "return": {} } Shouldn't this be broken into device and signal (or pin) arguments? > Note: the set of signals supported depends on the CPU architecture and > board type, unknown or unsupported names will > return "Unsupported" error. Unsuported error != bad usage error.