On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 08:36:36 -0600 Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> wrote:
> [cc'ing Luiz] > > On 06/24/2014 08:21 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > > On 05/29/14 23:05, Eric Blake wrote: > >> On 05/29/2014 02:43 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > > >>> In this series I try to implement the ideas that (I believe) were > >>> suggested by Gerd and Amit in > >>> <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080376>. > >>> > >>> When the guest agent exits or dies (disconnects from the virtio-serial > >>> port), the backend (eg. a host-side unix domain socket) doesn't (in > >>> general, can't) reflect it. This lack of info tends to trip up libvirt > >>> in some cases, waiting indefinitely for an agent that doesn't exist. > >>> > >>> The series adds two monitor events that report about virtio-serial ports > >>> being opened and closed (for online notification), and extends the > >>> "query-chardev" QMP command's return type with a "frontend_open" bool > >>> (for querying at late libvirt startup). > > >> > >>>>> +# backend (eg. with the chardev=... option) is in open > >>>>> or > >>>>> +# closed state (since 2.2) > >>>> > >>>> Why 2.2? Are you saying it is too late to make the 2.1 soft freeze? > >>> > >>> I thought that reviewers would immediately question the direction of the > >>> patchset (ie. monitor events + new query field), and not just suggest > >>> tweaks; so 2.2 seemed safer. Perhaps I can make it till the 2.1 soft > >>> freeze (June 17th), but that depends (as I've learned now) on Wenchao's > >>> series too. > >> > >> Actually, I think your series and Wenchao's are mostly orthogonal - > >> either could go in first, and it's just fine if one hits 2.1 while the > >> other waits till 2.2. It's just a matter of code churn, where getting > >> both in means whoever is second has to consider the code added in the > >> meantime (either your series is tweaked to use the qapi generation, or > >> Wenchao's series is tweaked to convert "one" more event). > > > > I'm thinking about resuming work on this. Wenchao's series has been > > applied (ends at commit 75175173). We're between soft and hard freeze > > now. Should I aim at 2.1 or 2.2? > > This series was posted before soft freeze, but adds a new feature. If > we're going to get it in the 2.1 release, it must be before hard freeze. > I'll leave it up to Luiz whether a QMP addition this late in the game > is safe to take, although my personal opinion is that since it was > proposed before soft freeze, and DOES make life easier for libvirt, it > is worth a strong consideration. Has this series being reviewed?
