On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:29:33 +0100 Alon Levy <al...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 03:22:11PM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > Honestly, for this particular case, I'm not 100% sure that having an id is > > > _required_, as I don't expect a client to submit multiple screendump calls > > > in parallel and we don't "officially" support multiple QMP clients either. > > > Also, having the screendump filename in the event will serve as a form of > > > identifier too. > > > > That is exactly my thinking, echo the filename written in the event. > > > > > Btw, are you planning to add the event to the already existing screendump > > > command? Adding a new command that doesn't use the monitor async API and > > > is truly asynchronous wouldn't better? > > > > Good question. I'd tend to just let the existing command send trigger > > an event. But libvirt needs some way to figure whenever it should wait > > for an event ... > > Right, that's the second reason I think a new command is needed. > Additionally a new command can be implemented only by qxl and not by > anything else (although I guess that would be a NACK?) Is there anything specific to qlx in the command? If there's, then you should also consider making this a QOM device property. The downside is that QOM commands are not going to be stable for 1.1.