On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 16:43:22 +0800
Wen Congyang wrote:
> > Having said that, I wonder if postponing want-to-be-async commands to 1.2 is
> > a good thing. Two solutions other than waiting:
> >
> > 1. Add synchronous versions of them, if possible (I think this is possible
> > for the dump com
At 03/08/2012 02:12 AM, Luiz Capitulino Wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 11:36:06 -0600
> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
>> On 03/07/2012 11:29 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> Il 07/03/2012 17:36, Luiz Capitulino ha scritto:
Hi there,
In the last few weeks we've had some proposals for new QMP c
On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 10:06:31PM +0200, Alon Levy wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 11:36:06AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > On 03/07/2012 11:29 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > >Il 07/03/2012 17:36, Luiz Capitulino ha scritto:
> > >>Hi there,
> > >>
> > >>In the last few weeks we've had some prop
Am 08.03.2012 15:12, schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
> Il 08/03/2012 13:34, Kevin Wolf ha scritto:
>>> I'm not really sure about drive mirroring. Is the work already done such
>>> that
>>> we just need to talk about merging it?
>> There are patches, but they still need review. I think it's doable for
>>
Il 08/03/2012 13:34, Kevin Wolf ha scritto:
> > I'm not really sure about drive mirroring. Is the work already done such
> > that
> > we just need to talk about merging it?
> There are patches, but they still need review. I think it's doable for
> 1.1. But in any case I don't think there's any j
Am 07.03.2012 18:36, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
> On 03/07/2012 11:29 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 07/03/2012 17:36, Luiz Capitulino ha scritto:
>>> Hi there,
>>>
>>> In the last few weeks we've had some proposals for new QMP commands that
>>> need
>>> to be asynchronous. As we lack a standard asy
On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 11:36:06AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/07/2012 11:29 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >Il 07/03/2012 17:36, Luiz Capitulino ha scritto:
> >>Hi there,
> >>
> >>In the last few weeks we've had some proposals for new QMP commands that
> >>need
> >>to be asynchronous. As we
On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 11:36:06 -0600
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/07/2012 11:29 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > Il 07/03/2012 17:36, Luiz Capitulino ha scritto:
> >> Hi there,
> >>
> >> In the last few weeks we've had some proposals for new QMP commands that
> >> need
> >> to be asynchronous. As we
On 03/07/2012 11:29 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 07/03/2012 17:36, Luiz Capitulino ha scritto:
Hi there,
In the last few weeks we've had some proposals for new QMP commands that need
to be asynchronous. As we lack a standard asynchronous API today, each command
ends up adding its own way to exec
Il 07/03/2012 17:36, Luiz Capitulino ha scritto:
> Hi there,
>
> In the last few weeks we've had some proposals for new QMP commands that need
> to be asynchronous. As we lack a standard asynchronous API today, each command
> ends up adding its own way to execute in the background.
>
> This multi
Hi there,
In the last few weeks we've had some proposals for new QMP commands that need
to be asynchronous. As we lack a standard asynchronous API today, each command
ends up adding its own way to execute in the background.
This multiplies the API complexity as each command has to be implemented
11 matches
Mail list logo
