[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Qemu-devel] (no subject)

From: Markus Armbruster
Subject: [Qemu-devel] (no subject)
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 19:21:49 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux)

I fooled around a bit, and I think there are a few lose ends.

Lets update the examples in docs/interop/qmp-spec.txt to show the
current greeting (section 3.1) and how to accept a capability (section
3.2).  The capability negotiation documentation could use some polish.
I'll post a patch.

Talking to a QMP monitor that supports OOB:

    $ socat UNIX:test-qmp READLINE,history=$HOME/.qmp_history,prompt='QMP> '
    {"QMP": {"version": {"qemu": {"micro": 50, "minor": 12, "major": 2}, 
"package": "v2.12.0-1703-gb909799463"}, "capabilities": ["oob"]}}
    QMP> { "execute": "qmp_capabilities", "arguments": { "oob": true } }
    {"error": {"class": "GenericError", "desc": "Parameter 'oob' is 
    QMP> { "execute": "qmp_capabilities", "arguments": { "enable": ["oob"] } }
    {"return": {}}
    QMP> { "execute": "query-qmp-schema" }
    {"error": {"class": "GenericError", "desc": "Out-Of-Band capability 
requires that every command contains an 'id' field"}}

Why does every command require 'id'?

Talking to a QMP monitor that doesn't support OOB:

    {"QMP": {"version": {"qemu": {"micro": 50, "minor": 12, "major": 2}, 
"package": "v2.12.0-1703-gb909799463"}, "capabilities": []}}
    QMP> { "execute": "qmp_capabilities", "arguments": { "enable": ["oob"] } }
    {"error": {"class": "GenericError", "desc": "This monitor does not support 
Out-Of-Band (OOB)"}}
    QMP> { "execute": "qmp_capabilities" }
    {"return": {}}
    QMP> { "execute": "query-kvm" }
    {"return": {"enabled": true, "present": true}}
    QMP> { "execute": "query-kvm", "control": { "run-oob": true } }
    {"error": {"class": "GenericError", "desc": "Please enable Out-Of-Band 
first for the session during capabilities negotiation"}}

Telling people to enable OOB when that cannot be done is suboptimal.
More so when it cannot be used here anyway.  I'll post a patch.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]