On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 12:44:20PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> On 02.10.2013 20:08, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 11:42:13AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> >> On 10/02/2013 11:09 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> >>> Right now, we are testing qemuMonitorSystemPowerdown instead
On 02.10.2013 20:08, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 11:42:13AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
>> On 10/02/2013 11:09 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>>> Right now, we are testing qemuMonitorSystemPowerdown instead of
>>> qemuMonitorJSONSystemPowerdown. It makes no harm, as both functions
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 11:42:13AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 10/02/2013 11:09 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> > Right now, we are testing qemuMonitorSystemPowerdown instead of
> > qemuMonitorJSONSystemPowerdown. It makes no harm, as both functions have
> > the same header and the former is just a
On 10/02/2013 11:09 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> Right now, we are testing qemuMonitorSystemPowerdown instead of
> qemuMonitorJSONSystemPowerdown. It makes no harm, as both functions have
> the same header and the former is just a wrapper over the latter. But we
> should be consistent as we're tes
Right now, we are testing qemuMonitorSystemPowerdown instead of
qemuMonitorJSONSystemPowerdown. It makes no harm, as both functions have
the same header and the former is just a wrapper over the latter. But we
should be consistent as we're testing the JSON functions only in here.
Signed-off-by: Mi
