All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
To: Daniel Henrique Barboza <danielhb@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>,
	Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>,
	Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
	libvir-list@redhat.com, danielhb413@gmail.com,
	qemu-devel@nongnu.org, mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
	Anthony Perard <anthony.perard@citrix.com>,
	Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>,
	dgilbert@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v7 1/3] qmp: adding 'wakeup-suspend-support' in query-target
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 09:09:00 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <8736xikk8j.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0f8421a3-8b03-e949-1ca9-6efbf39de718@linux.ibm.com> (Daniel Henrique Barboza's message of "Tue, 19 Jun 2018 17:29:26 -0300")

Daniel Henrique Barboza <danielhb@linux.ibm.com> writes:

> Hi,
>
> Sorry for the delay. I'll summarize what I've understood from the discussion
> so far:
>
> - query-target is the wrong place for this flag. query-machines is
> (less) wrong
> because it is not a static property of the machine object
>
> - a new "query-current-machine" can be created to host these dynamic
> properties that belongs to the current instance of the VM
>
> - there are machines in which the suspend support may vary with a
> "-no-acpi" option that would disable both the suspend and wake-up
> support. In this case, I see no problem into counting this flag into
> the logic (assuming it is possible, of course) and setting it as "false"
> if there is -no-acpi present (or even making the API returning "yes",
> "no" or "acpi" like Markus suggested) somewhere.
>
>
> Based on the last email from Eduardo, apparently there is a handful
> of other machine properties that can be hosted in either this new
> query-current-machine API or query-machines. I believe that this is
> more of a long term goal, but this new query-current-machine API
> would be a good kick-off and we should go for it.
>
> Is this a fair understanding? Did I miss something?

Sounds fair to me.

Adding query-current-machine on the evidence of just one flag would be
questionable, but Eduardo expects there to be more, so it's okay.

Whether a property is static or dynamic can change over time, which
makes the choice of query-machines vs. query-current-machine
non-trivial.  We better write down how we plan to handle mispredictions,
i.e. what to do when a property we put into query-machines turns out to
be dynamic, or a property we put into query-current-machine turns out to
be static, or we'd like query-machines to cover a property that is
static except for a few machines.

Eduardo, anything to add?

  reply	other threads:[~2018-06-20  7:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-05-17 19:23 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v7 0/3] wakeup-from-suspend and system_wakeup changes Daniel Henrique Barboza
2018-05-17 19:23 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v7 1/3] qmp: adding 'wakeup-suspend-support' in query-target Daniel Henrique Barboza
2018-05-18  8:48   ` Markus Armbruster
2018-05-21 18:14     ` Eduardo Habkost
2018-05-21 19:46       ` Daniel Henrique Barboza
2018-05-21 20:26         ` Eduardo Habkost
2018-05-23  9:17           ` Markus Armbruster
2018-05-23 12:27             ` Eduardo Habkost
2018-05-23 14:11               ` Daniel Henrique Barboza
2018-05-23 15:53               ` Markus Armbruster
2018-05-24 18:57                 ` Eduardo Habkost
2018-05-25  6:30                   ` Markus Armbruster
2018-05-25 20:30                     ` Eduardo Habkost
2018-05-28  7:23                       ` Markus Armbruster
2018-05-29 14:55                         ` Eduardo Habkost
2018-06-19 20:29                           ` Daniel Henrique Barboza
2018-06-20  7:09                             ` Markus Armbruster [this message]
2018-05-17 19:23 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v7 2/3] qga: update guest-suspend-ram and guest-suspend-hybrid descriptions Daniel Henrique Barboza
2018-05-17 19:23 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v7 3/3] qmp.c: system_wakeup: runstate and wake-up support check Daniel Henrique Barboza
2018-05-18  8:48   ` Markus Armbruster
2018-05-18 12:52     ` Daniel Henrique Barboza
2018-05-18 15:00       ` Markus Armbruster

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=8736xikk8j.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org \
    --to=armbru@redhat.com \
    --cc=anthony.perard@citrix.com \
    --cc=danielhb413@gmail.com \
    --cc=danielhb@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=dgilbert@redhat.com \
    --cc=ehabkost@redhat.com \
    --cc=imammedo@redhat.com \
    --cc=libvir-list@redhat.com \
    --cc=mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=mst@redhat.com \
    --cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
    --cc=sstabellini@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.