[Qemu-devel] Re: [RFC][PATCH v1 05/12] qapi: fix handling for null-return async callbacks

[Luiz Capitulino]

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 12:01:16 -0500
Anthony Liguori <address@hidden> wrote:

> On 03/28/2011 11:47 AM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 16:22:16 -0500
> > Anthony Liguori<address@hidden>  wrote:
> >
> >> On 03/25/2011 02:47 PM, Michael Roth wrote:
> >>> Async commands like 'guest-ping' have NULL retvals. Handle these by
> >>> inserting an empty dictionary in the response's "return" field.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Michael Roth<address@hidden>
> >>> ---
> >>>    qmp-core.c |    5 ++++-
> >>>    1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/qmp-core.c b/qmp-core.c
> >>> index e33f7a4..9f3d182 100644
> >>> --- a/qmp-core.c
> >>> +++ b/qmp-core.c
> >>> @@ -922,9 +922,12 @@ void qmp_async_complete_command(QmpCommandState 
> >>> *cmd, QObject *retval, Error *er
> >>>        rsp = qdict_new();
> >>>        if (err) {
> >>>            qdict_put_obj(rsp, "error", error_get_qobject(err));
> >>> -    } else {
> >>> +    } else if (retval) {
> >>>            qobject_incref(retval);
> >>>            qdict_put_obj(rsp, "return", retval);
> >>> +    } else {
> >>> +        /* add empty "return" dict, this is the standard for NULL 
> >>> returns */
> >>> +        qdict_put_obj(rsp, "return", QOBJECT(qdict_new()));
> >> Luiz, I know we decided to return empty dicts because it lets us extend
> >> things better, but did we want to rule out the use of a 'null' return
> >> value entirely?
> > For asynchronous commands you mean? No we didn't.
> 
> No, nothing to do with asynchronous commands.  Just in general.
> 
> The question is, is it legal for a command to return 'null'.  It's 
> certain valid JSON, but is it valid QMP?

No, it's not valid.

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Anthony Liguori
> 
> > *iirc*, what happens today is that no command using this api is truly async,
> > for two reasons. First, changing from sync to async can break clients (that
> > happened to query-balloon). Second, although I can't remember the exact
> > details, the api that exists in the tree today is limited.
> >
> > But for a new thing, like QAPI, having different semantics for async 
> > commands
> > seems the right thing to be done (ie. delaying the response).
> 
> 
> 
> >> For a command like this, I can't imagine ever wanting to extend the
> >> return value...
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Anthony Liguori
> >>
> >>>        }
> >>>        if (cmd->tag) {
> >>>            qdict_put_obj(rsp, "tag", cmd->tag);
>