From: John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com>
To: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>,
"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>
Cc: "Kevin Wolf" <kwolf@redhat.com>,
"Peter Maydell" <peter.maydell@linaro.org>,
"Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>,
"Denis V. Lunev" <den@virtuozzo.com>,
"Cleber Rosa" <cleber@redhat.com>,
"Stefan Hajnoczi" <stefanha@gmail.com>,
qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
"Marc-André Lureau" <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>,
"Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
"Dominik Csapak" <d.csapak@proxmox.com>,
"Eduardo Habkost" <ehabkost@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: qmp-shell for GSoC/Outreachy?
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 15:56:48 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a6aa1e23-82ce-2dfc-168e-6759cf22d3c9@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <877e10xdd6.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org>
On 2/6/20 4:40 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com> writes:
>
>> * John Snow (jsnow@redhat.com) wrote:
>>> I'm forking the subject as I believe Markus wanted to focus on the
>>> machine interface aspect.
>>>
>>> I feel that a new human interface is *related* to that goal: the
>>> splitting of, and commitment to, separate human and machine interfaces
>>> powered by a single root schema.
>
> A bit of history.
>
> QMP initially shared HMP's "schema": qemu-monitor.hx. The command
> handler was either a traditional HMP one, or a QMP-enabling pair (QMP
> handler, HMP formatter). The idea was to convert traditional HMP
> handlers one by one, then ditch support for them.
>
> With a QMP handler, HMP became a wrapper around QMP. The input wrapping
> was data-driven: @args_type specifies how to map HMP arguments to QMP.
> The output wrapper was code, namely the HMP formatter.
>
> This design turned out to tie QMP to HMP too tightly. It assumes QMP
> and HMP commands are identical apart from argument syntax and output
> formatting. They often should not be. QMP wants building blocks:
> simple commands with simple replies, in particular simple failure modes.
> HMP wants convenience. QMP wants rigor. HMP has uses where that's a
> painful and unnecessary.
>
> So we split qemu-monitor.hx into hmp-commands.hx and qmp-commands.hx.
> The former reverted back to the pre-QMP state, and the latter lost
> support for HMP wrappers. QMP was liberated from having to reimplement
> HMP. HMP was liberated from always having to do QMP first.
>
> qmp-commands.hx was eventually replaced by the QAPI schema.
>
> The lesson here is that to make "powered by a single root schema" work
> well, we'll likely have to put in more smarts than we did back then.
>
Yes, understood: this is rigorous work that we've failed at before. It's
a big task; but I feel like we are increasingly hurt by our focus on QMP
and leaving HMP in the dust.
Unifying them might be the only reasonable forward-thinking thing, even
if it's hard.
> More on that below in reply to David's reply.
>
>>> I am a big believer in making QEMU usable directly to human users as I
>>> feel the pipeline of "tinker to deployment" is important for a
>>> successful project, for many reasons:
>>>
>>> - QEMU should be easy to pick up and learn.
>>>
>>> - Supporting QEMU's use directly as an "end-user" program increases
>>> proficiency in the user population at large, which (can) lead to better
>>> answers and engagement on e.g. Reddit, StackOverflow, IRC
>>>
>>> - Evolving deployments from QEMU-only to libvirt+ or above (RHV, oVirt,
>>> kubevirt) should be a smooth and gradual process as additional
>>> complexity is desired.
>>>
>>> - Focusing on QEMU's usability allows our project to be consumed easier
>>> by new cloud-focused projects. If they are already familiar with (and
>>> happy with) our project, it is more likely to be used instead of seeking
>>> out alternatives. This is about reducing friction.
>>>
>>> So, for those reasons ... even though I feel that a machine-focused API
>>> is our #1 priority as it caters to our existing users, we should also
>>> focus on what it will take to grow mindshare for QEMU's value in the
>>> ecosystem.
>>>
>>> Slick interfaces and documentation go a long, long way to doing that.
>>>
>>> So: I feel that any new machine-only paradigm or overhaul needs to be
>>> accompanied with some new sugar to help the medicine go down, so-to-speak.
>
> Points taken.
>
>>> On 2/5/20 8:09 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>>>> Am 28.01.2020 um 11:59 hat Kevin Wolf geschrieben:
>>>>>>> The other part that it needs to solve is how to be available by default
>>>>>>> without specifying anything on the command line. Basically, if I press
>>>>>>> Ctrl-Alt-2, I want to get to a monitor shell. If that shell is
>>>>>>> implemented internally or by an external Python process, I don't mind.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is a harder part. (I rarely use Ctrl-Alt-2 actually; I mostly
>>>>>> use HMP on stdin).
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think it would be that hard, actually.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you have a -qmp-shell option that takes a chardev and defaults to vc,
>>>>> you've solved the part with both stdio and Ctrl-Alt-2. Now all you need
>>>>> to do is launch the Python child process, pass it a pair of pipes for
>>>>> communication and forward everything between the pipes and the chardev.
>>>>>
>>>>> (That's the theory anyway.)
>>>>
>>>> If someone is interested, I did a quick proof-of-concept hack:
>>>>
>>>> https://repo.or.cz/qemu/kevin.git/shortlog/refs/heads/qmp-shell
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't clean up anything properly (including the qmp-shell processes
>>>> it starts), but it spawns a usable qmp-shell on a user-specified
>>>> character device. stdio seems to work, though without readline
>>>> functionality (I suppose I still have line-buffering somewhere), vc
>>>> doesn't really work at all yet.
>>>>
>>>> Try it out like this:
>>>>
>>>> $ ./qemu-storage-daemon --chardev stdio,id=m --monitor m,mode=qmp-shell
>>>> monitor_qmp_event: 1
>>>> Welcome to the QMP low-level shell!
>>>> Connected to QEMU 4.2.50
>>>>
>>>> (QEMU) query-version
>>>> {"return": {"qemu": {"micro": 50, "major": 4, "minor": 2}, "package": "v4.2.0-1188-gd95a3885a9"}}
>>>> (QEMU) quit
>>>>
>>>> (Or use x86_64-softmmu/qemu-system-x86_64, but it's based on the
>>>> refactorings in the storage daemon branch, so why not try both at once?)
>>>>
>>>> Polishing this to make it mergable would still require substantial work,
>>>> so at the moment I'm not planning to do this. But if someone wants to
>>>> pick it up, feel free (just let us know).
>>>>
>>>> Hm, in fact... A qmp-shell GSoC project?
>>>>
>>>
>>> That would be great. I worry that we should have a clear vision for the
>>> syntax before we give this project to an intern, though. With a clear
>>> vision and an outline for deliverables, it's an incredibly appropriate
>>> project.
>>>
>>> Some things I think we want to define before we start:
>>>
>>> 1. What are we trying to achieve with a standalone shell?
>
> Projects without a clear goal rarely succeed. Success within three
> months is even rarer.
>
>>> 2. What syntax should it use?
>
> Leaving that to a GSoC student amounts to setting up for failure.
>
>>> I think those are the hardest parts.
>>>
>>> Below, some musings:
>>>
>>> - An integrated QMP shell would be a great usability boost to users of
>>> bare QEMU.
>>>
>>> - It is undesirable in general to support two interfaces. Feature
>>> disparity is a problem, as is needing to document and test two separate
>>> interfaces. The quality disparity between the two is also an issue.
>>>
>>> - Offering HMP via the GTK interface but not QMP is a discoverability
>>> problem. Unfamiliar users might assume that HMP is our flagship
>>> interface. It is not.
>>>
>>> - We are unlikely to re-expand HMP to cover everything QMP does; writing
>>> a QMP shell that makes QMP easy to interface with is a better solution
>>> for removing redundancy and complexity.
>>>
>>> - I suspect that the target audience for users of naked QEMU are:
>>> - QEMU developers
>>> - Upper-layer developers (RHV, oVirt, KubeVirt, libvirt, kata, et al)
>>> researching, testing, and debugging integration.
>>> - Devops professionals testing, implementing and debugging
>>> configuration & infrastructure
>>> - Security/infosec researchers
>>> - Embedded platform developers
>>> - Academic researchers
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So please correct me if I am off the mark;
>>>
>>> Design Goals:
>>> - The removal of HMP
>>> - An easy-to-use interface that remains reasonably "close" to the
>>> machine API such that it provides a smooth transition to scripting QEMU.
>>> - Integration with our GTK interface for discoverability and convenience
>>>
>>> Syntax:
>>> - TBD? Do we agree that the current syntax in qmp-shell is "bad" and
>>> should be replaced? If yes, what should it look like?
>>
>> I believe it should be a python shell with added commands.
>>
>> Simple things should be simple.
>> e.g. adding a disk from a local file should be trivial.
>>
>> Complex things can be complex - but it would be better if they were
>> simple.
>>
>> It's OK if the worst case of a blockdev is a bit hairy, but
>> watch out for cases where the hairyness creeps in unnecessarily.
>
> Designing interfaces to complex machinery is hard. Experience tells
> that we do okay when we focus on the building blocks first. That's
> -blockdev. When we start with trying to make simple things simple, we
> end in swamps. That's -drive.
>
> Focus on building blocks is of course no excuse for unnecessary
> hairiness.
>
> It's also no reason not to build more convenient things on top of the
> building blocks. I doubt they should go into QMP, though.
>
>> If the user screwsup, it should give an error that prompts the user
>> to the parameter they got wrong.
>>
>> Output from commands should normally be pretty formatted (with an option
>> to display raw json for those needing it).
>> e.g. that 'query-version' should give either just the package
>> version (as info version currently does) or:
>> 4.2.50 Package: v4.2.0-1188-gd95a3885a9
>>
>> We shouldn't lose any HMP commands that some people find useful
>> Ditching HMP isn't an option until we've got almost all of it
>> covered.
>
> In particular, we currently use HMP for debugging and monitoring
> purposes, where we don't need or want QMP's rigor, neither its rigorous
> interface stability, nor its structured I/O. We want the "whipuptitude"
> we get from monitor_printf(). This is actually a point David has made
> several times.
>
Yes, the "whipupitude" is something I am keen on preserving -- I just
want that whipupitude to be based on a schema.
Can we accomplish this with qmp-shell plugins that use special QMP
interfaces? I think so.
I'm imagining a special feature flag for "experimental" interfaces in
QMP that aren't thought through enough to become real interfaces that
these sugar commands -- implemented primarily in the shell - use.
They might do some bad things: they're synchronous, they might return a
bit too much data, they might return too much data. But it's only for
debug use, and we declare the API unstable/fluid, so we don't care.
Maybe this is a fool's errand, though, and we SHOULD just keep HMP.
Maybe we just need to QAPI-fy our HMP shell so that we can document it
better, and expand QAPI power to describe the format of HMP commands.
The core issue I take with HMP is that it's underdocumented, tends to
rot, and rarely keeps up with configuration idiom changes in QEMU -- it
*feels* like a legacy interface, not an up-to-date debugging interface.
However we fix this is actually not personally important to me.
> To have a qmp-shell replace HMP, I think it needs to be able to
>
> * Go beyond 1:1
>
> We tried a 1:1 mapping between HMP and QMP commands, and it didn't
> work out. HMP's replacement should let us build convenient commands
> from QMP building blocks.
>
> We tried a 1:1 mapping between HMP and QMP command arguments, guided
> by @args_type. Worked out for simple cases, but was too constricting.
>
> * Preserve "whipuptitude" [David]
>
> I figure that means allowing some in QMP. Without compromising its
> core mission, of course.
>
> * As discoverable as HMP is now [Kevin]
>
> * Help, completion and such at least on par with what HMP provides now
>
> Highly desirable:
>
> * Support transitioning to the machine interface [John]
>
> Let humans start playing with the human interface, and when they feel
> the need to automate, help them transition to QMP.
>
> Back to John's question on qmp-shell syntax, which hasn't been answered
> so far.
>
> JSON is a data-interchange format. It doesn't try to be a configuration
> format or programming language syntax for human use. It gets pressed
> into these roles with entirely predictable poor results.
>
More or less; but it's still pretty decent as a format if you're editing
it in an IDE that can assist you in doing so.
No editor I am aware of at present is capable of editing JSON or YAML
against a schema, though: the prevailing paradigm appears to be:
- Write file in editor
- Run some validator command
- Deploy and pray
From what I can tell, this is how it works in the cloud world, too.
> Pain points of JSON include having to count parenthesises and having to
> quote so bloody much. Additional QMP pain points include long names and
> excessive nesting.
>
> For the configuration format role, more usable alternatives exist. YAML
> is a popular one.
>
Yes, but doesn't solve our parsing issue for interactive shells.
> qmp-shell is a REPL. It needs a REPL-friendly syntax. I doubt YAML is
> or even tries to be REPL-friendly. I'd love to be wrong; the first rule
> of language design is "don't".
>
Yes.
> Other language suggestions?
>
> On making JSON suck less in this role:
>
> LISP REPLs demonstrate that computers can assist effectively with
> counting parenthesises, and with completing long names.
>
> We could make quoting optional for sufficiently nice object member
> names. QAPI naming rules ensure niceness, actually.
>
> We could make quoting optional for certain string literals. Simple
> enough for literals that can only be a string, like abc. For literals
> that could be something else like 123 or true, omitting quotes creates
> ambiguity. When the schema accepts only one of the possible types, the
> ambiguity goes away. Complexity stays, however.
>
> Excessive nesting should ideally be attacked in QMP itself, but backward
> compatibility makes that hard.
>
I wish I had a good idea on how to make a QMP wrapper that works in a
REPL that didn't involve copy/pasting JSON. I guess it's why so many
people *do* just cat data into the socket.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-07 20:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 183+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-12-20 16:13 Making QEMU easier for management tools and applications Stefan Hajnoczi
2019-12-20 21:07 ` Richard W.M. Jones
2020-01-02 11:26 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2019-12-21 9:02 ` Markus Armbruster
2019-12-23 15:04 ` Michal Prívozník
2020-01-07 9:36 ` Kevin Wolf
2020-01-07 10:55 ` Michal Privoznik
2020-01-07 12:57 ` Kevin Wolf
2020-01-07 17:53 ` Christophe de Dinechin
2019-12-24 13:41 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-01-22 22:28 ` John Snow
2020-01-23 7:19 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-01-23 17:58 ` John Snow
2020-01-23 19:01 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-01-23 21:07 ` John Snow
2020-01-24 7:59 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-01-24 10:27 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-01-24 14:38 ` Kevin Wolf
2020-01-24 18:23 ` John Snow
2020-01-24 18:30 ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2020-01-24 18:48 ` John Snow
2020-01-24 18:52 ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2020-01-24 18:58 ` John Snow
2020-01-25 10:18 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-01-27 10:18 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-01-27 12:48 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-01-27 11:56 ` Kevin Wolf
2020-01-27 12:04 ` Peter Maydell
2020-01-27 20:11 ` John Snow
2020-01-27 22:38 ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-01-28 0:37 ` John Snow
2020-01-28 10:16 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-01-28 10:39 ` Kevin Wolf
2020-01-28 15:36 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-01-31 12:25 ` Eric Blake
2020-01-28 10:28 ` Kevin Wolf
2020-01-28 12:36 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-01-28 12:54 ` Kevin Wolf
2020-01-28 13:45 ` Gerd Hoffmann
2020-01-31 6:50 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-01-31 7:48 ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-01-31 8:09 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-02-03 20:07 ` Andrea Bolognani
2020-02-04 9:58 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-01-31 12:27 ` Eric Blake
2020-02-02 9:21 ` Kevin Wolf
2020-02-02 10:44 ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-02-03 6:20 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-02-03 8:48 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-01-27 20:12 ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2020-01-24 20:34 ` John Snow
2020-01-27 8:35 ` Gerd Hoffmann
2020-01-27 12:13 ` Kevin Wolf
2020-01-27 16:18 ` Gerd Hoffmann
2020-01-24 9:50 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-01-25 11:52 ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-01-27 10:05 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-01-27 8:25 ` Tooling to help humans use JSON (was: Making QEMU easier for management tools and applications) Markus Armbruster
2020-01-27 9:06 ` Making QEMU easier for management tools and applications Markus Armbruster
2020-01-27 10:00 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-01-27 14:35 ` Kevin Wolf
2020-01-27 20:29 ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2020-01-28 10:59 ` Kevin Wolf
2020-02-05 13:09 ` Kevin Wolf
2020-02-05 19:09 ` qmp-shell for GSoC/Outreachy? (Was: Re: Making QEMU easier for management tools and applications) John Snow
2020-02-05 19:49 ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2020-02-06 9:40 ` qmp-shell for GSoC/Outreachy? Markus Armbruster
2020-02-06 10:09 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-02-06 12:11 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-02-06 12:15 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-02-06 18:02 ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2020-02-07 21:03 ` John Snow
2020-02-08 7:17 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-02-06 14:21 ` Kevin Wolf
2020-02-06 18:26 ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2020-02-07 10:49 ` Kevin Wolf
2020-02-07 21:23 ` John Snow
2020-02-08 7:25 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-02-10 11:59 ` Kevin Wolf
2020-02-10 12:26 ` Kevin Wolf
2020-02-06 18:18 ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2020-02-07 7:47 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-02-07 21:31 ` Eric Blake
2020-02-08 7:34 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-02-07 21:56 ` John Snow
2020-02-07 20:56 ` John Snow [this message]
2020-01-27 20:59 ` Making QEMU easier for management tools and applications John Snow
2020-01-28 10:16 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-01-28 19:21 ` John Snow
2020-01-24 6:38 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-01-25 22:34 ` Christophe de Dinechin
2020-01-25 11:55 ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-01-02 14:47 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2020-01-16 11:03 ` Kashyap Chamarthy
2020-01-20 9:55 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2020-01-20 13:57 ` Kashyap Chamarthy
2020-01-25 11:41 ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-01-27 19:41 ` John Snow
2020-01-02 15:05 ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2020-01-13 13:44 ` Markus Armbruster
2019-12-24 13:00 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-01-02 14:22 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2020-01-22 22:42 ` John Snow
2020-01-23 7:21 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-01-23 10:27 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-01-23 18:13 ` John Snow
2020-01-23 19:12 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-01-02 15:10 ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2020-01-07 17:11 ` Christophe de Dinechin
2020-01-08 10:43 ` Kevin Wolf
2020-01-08 11:40 ` Christophe de Dinechin
2020-01-08 13:38 ` Kevin Wolf
2020-01-14 13:04 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-01-14 17:31 ` Christophe de Dinechin
2020-01-15 9:20 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-01-15 9:34 ` Christophe de Dinechin
2020-01-15 12:15 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-01-15 12:19 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-01-15 14:02 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-01-30 21:09 ` Improving QOM documentation [Was: Re: Making QEMU easier for management tools and applications] Kashyap Chamarthy
2020-01-31 6:11 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-01-31 7:46 ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-01-31 15:37 ` Christophe de Dinechin
2020-01-31 16:28 ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-01-31 9:50 ` Kashyap Chamarthy
2020-01-31 10:35 ` Peter Maydell
2020-01-31 11:02 ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-01-31 15:22 ` Kashyap Chamarthy
2020-01-31 17:23 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-02-03 8:56 ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-02-03 9:54 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-02-03 15:21 ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-02-04 8:42 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-01-31 16:39 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-01-20 10:08 ` Making QEMU easier for management tools and applications Stefan Hajnoczi
2020-01-21 5:42 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-01-21 11:32 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2020-01-21 12:03 ` Marc-André Lureau
2020-01-21 13:36 ` Integrating QOM into QAPI (was: Making QEMU easier for management tools and applications) Markus Armbruster
2020-01-21 14:36 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-01-21 15:01 ` Integrating QOM into QAPI Markus Armbruster
2020-01-21 15:11 ` Marc-André Lureau
2020-01-21 16:21 ` Peter Maydell
2020-01-22 5:16 ` Getting whole-tree patches reviewed and merged (was: Integrating QOM into QAPI) Markus Armbruster
2020-02-07 21:53 ` Getting whole-tree patches reviewed and merged Eric Blake
2020-02-10 11:26 ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-02-10 16:04 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-02-10 16:12 ` Peter Maydell
2020-01-22 10:50 ` Integrating QOM into QAPI Alex Bennée
2020-01-22 12:24 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-01-22 12:42 ` Marc-André Lureau
2020-01-22 13:28 ` Peter Maydell
2020-01-22 13:32 ` Marc-André Lureau
2020-01-23 7:37 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-01-24 18:32 ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-01-25 4:44 ` Marc-André Lureau
2020-01-25 9:28 ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-01-25 21:25 ` Peter Maydell
2020-01-26 8:09 ` Christophe de Dinechin
2020-01-26 9:11 ` Marc-André Lureau
2020-01-26 16:47 ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-01-27 19:05 ` Christophe de Dinechin
2020-01-27 19:05 ` Christophe de Dinechin
2020-01-26 15:04 ` Peter Maydell
2020-01-27 19:05 ` Christophe de Dinechin
2020-01-28 8:00 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-01-28 10:03 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-01-29 12:42 ` Christophe de Dinechin
2020-01-15 9:35 ` Making QEMU easier for management tools and applications Marc-André Lureau
2020-01-15 12:25 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-01-25 17:18 ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-01-27 9:30 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-01-13 16:30 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2020-02-04 15:54 ` Summary of " Markus Armbruster
2020-02-05 6:38 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-02-10 10:56 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2020-02-10 11:01 ` Peter Maydell
2020-02-10 11:08 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-02-10 11:29 ` Peter Maydell
2020-02-10 11:04 ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-02-10 16:43 ` Markus Armbruster
2020-02-12 13:54 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2020-02-12 14:03 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
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=a6aa1e23-82ce-2dfc-168e-6759cf22d3c9@redhat.com \
--to=jsnow@redhat.com \
--cc=armbru@redhat.com \
--cc=berrange@redhat.com \
--cc=cleber@redhat.com \
--cc=d.csapak@proxmox.com \
--cc=den@virtuozzo.com \
--cc=dgilbert@redhat.com \
--cc=ehabkost@redhat.com \
--cc=kwolf@redhat.com \
--cc=marcandre.lureau@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peter.maydell@linaro.org \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=stefanha@gmail.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).