On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 04:09:48PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 01/12/2015 03:18, Peter Xu wrote:
> > I think (2) is better in term of lines of codes (and also
> > clear). However I may need to keep the QMP interface (to keep the
> > has_detach parameter in qmp_dump_guest_memory), so I'd
On 01/12/2015 03:18, Peter Xu wrote:
> I think (2) is better in term of lines of codes (and also
> clear). However I may need to keep the QMP interface (to keep the
> has_detach parameter in qmp_dump_guest_memory), so I'd like to
> choose (1).
It's also okay to also pass has_detach = true to qmp
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 03:05:10PM -0700, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 11/30/2015 04:32 AM, Peter Xu wrote:
> > This patch only adds the interfaces, but not implements them.
> > "detach" parameter is made optional, to make sure that all the old
> > dump-guest-memory requests will still be able to work.
>
On 11/30/2015 04:32 AM, Peter Xu wrote:
> This patch only adds the interfaces, but not implements them.
> "detach" parameter is made optional, to make sure that all the old
> dump-guest-memory requests will still be able to work.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Xu
> ---
> dump.c | 5 +++--
>
This patch only adds the interfaces, but not implements them.
"detach" parameter is made optional, to make sure that all the old
dump-guest-memory requests will still be able to work.
Signed-off-by: Peter Xu
---
dump.c | 5 +++--
hmp-commands.hx | 5 +++--
hmp.c| 9 +++
