[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 07/32] qmp: Make "id" optional again even in "oo

From: Daniel P . Berrangé
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 07/32] qmp: Make "id" optional again even in "oob" monitors
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 10:08:08 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.10.0 (2018-05-17)

On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 08:14:35AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Peter Xu <address@hidden> writes:
> > On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 06:21:53PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> Commit cf869d53172 "qmp: support out-of-band (oob) execution" made
> >> "id" mandatory for all commands when the client accepted capability
> >> "oob".  This is rather onerous when you play with QMP by hand, and
> >> unnecessarily so: only out-of-band commands need an ID for reliable
> >> matching of response to command.
> >> 
> >> Revert that part of commit cf869d53172 for now.  We may still make
> >> "id" mandatory for out-of-band commands.
> >
> > This change should be okay with current implementation when
> > out-of-band commands are still in order themselves, though I'm still
> > not that confident on whether we really want this change if only for
> > the sake of easier usage for human beings.
> >
> > If we see Libvirt, the real player for QMP - it has the "id" field
> > even for in-band commands always.  I'd say the "id" field is really
> > helpful for machines, though not that friendly to us.
> >
> > Basically I'll read it as: machines like "id"s, humans hate "id"s.
> > And QMP is Qemu Machine Protocol after all... so not sure whether
> > it'll be good we change that for us humans.
> "id" being optional doesn't hurt libvirt in any way.  Thus, I see no
> need to inconvenience humans.
> Daniel has argued[*] for making "id" mandatory with OOB commands.  I'm
> not rejecting that argument.  But I needed to get this out in a hurry,
> and simply reverting something is quicker than debating and implementing
> an improvement.  There's still time to tweak this before the release.

I'm fine with this - I agree that it is more important to avoid creating
a regression, than to enforce "id" for OOB. We've still documented that
OOB will require "id", so it would not be a surprise once we enforce it

Reviewed-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <address@hidden>

|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|

reply via email to

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