Markus Armbruster <armbru@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 08:57:52PM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote: >>> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> >>> > libvirt has a long-standing bug: when removing the device, >>> > it can request removal but does not know when the >>> > removal completes. Add an event so we can fix this in a robust way. >>> > >>> > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> Speaking as the acting QMP maintainer, just to avoid misunderstandings: >>> there's disagreement on the event's design, namely when it should fire, >>> and how it should name the device. I don't want the discussion >>> preempted by a commit. >> >> Yes, you are asking for more functionality, but can I add this in a >> follow-up commit please? I prefer this patch as is, as it can be >> backported to stable branches and downstreams. Upstream a follow up >> patch can add fields and more triggers which won't apply to any >> downstreams. > > If you want to address my review comments in a separate patch, go right > ahead. Please post both together as a series, for coherent review and > to simplify patch tracking. > > I'm asking for two things: > > 1. Event member path. Fair to call this "more functionality". I agree > that backporting it to pre-QOM versions isn't practical. > > 2. Sane event trigger condition: on any device deletion, not just when > the device happens to have a qdev ID. This isn't "more", it's > "different". Ack. Regards, Anthony Liguori -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list