On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 9:35 AM Markus Armbruster [off-list ref] wrote:

Eduardo Habkost [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 9:44 AM Thomas Huth [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 11/08/2021 15.40, Eduardo Habkost wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 2:10 AM Thomas Huth [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 10/08/2021 20.56, Eduardo Habkost wrote:

quoted

On Sat, Aug 07, 2021 at 04:22:42PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:

quoted

Is this intended to be a stable interface?  Interfaces intended just for
debugging usually aren't.

I don't think we need to make it a stable interface, but I won't
mind if we declare it stable.

If we don't feel 100% certain yet, it's maybe better to introduce this with
a "x-" prefix first, isn't it? I.e. "x-query-x86-cpuid" ... then it's clear
that this is only experimental/debugging/not-stable yet. Just my 0.02 €.

That would be my expectation. Is this a documented policy?

According to docs/interop/qmp-spec.txt :

  Any command or member name beginning with "x-" is deemed
  experimental, and may be withdrawn or changed in an incompatible
  manner in a future release.

Thanks! I had looked at other QMP docs, but not qmp-spec.txt.

In my reply above, please read "make it a stable interface" as
"declare it as supported by not using the 'x-' prefix".

I don't think we have to make it stable, but I won't argue against it
if the current proposal is deemed acceptable by other maintainers.

Personally, I'm still frustrated by the complexity of the current
proposal, but I don't want to block it just because of my frustration.

Is this a case of "there must be a simpler way", or did you actually
propose a simpler way?  I don't remember...

I did propose a simpler way at
https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/20210810195053.6vsjadglrexf6jwy@habkost.net/ (local)

--
Eduardo