Daniel Henrique Barboza <danie...@linux.ibm.com> writes:
> On 05/15/2018 12:35 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Daniel Henrique Barboza <danie...@linux.ibm.com> writes:
>>> This patch updates the descriptions of 'guest-suspend-ram' and
>>> 'guest-suspend-hybrid' to mention that both commands relies now
>>> on the existence of 'system_wakeup' and also on the proper support
>>> for wake up from suspend, retrieved by the 'wakeup-suspend-support'
>>> attribute of the 'query-target' QMP command.
>>> Reported-by: Balamuruhan S <bal...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Henrique Barboza <danie...@linux.ibm.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Michael Roth <mdr...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>> qga/qapi-schema.json | 14 ++++++++++----
>>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>> diff --git a/qga/qapi-schema.json b/qga/qapi-schema.json
>>> index 17884c7c70..e3fb8adfce 100644
>>> --- a/qga/qapi-schema.json
>>> +++ b/qga/qapi-schema.json
>>> @@ -566,8 +566,11 @@
>>> # package installed in the guest.
>>> # IMPORTANT: guest-suspend-ram requires QEMU to support the
>>> -# command. Thus, it's *required* to query QEMU for the presence of the
>>> -# 'system_wakeup' command before issuing guest-suspend-ram.
>>> +# command and the guest to support wake up from suspend. Thus, it's
>>> +# *required* to query QEMU for the presence of the 'system_wakeup' command
>>> +# and to verify that wake up from suspend is enabled by checking the
>>> +# 'wakeup-suspend-support' flag of 'query-target' QMP command, before
>>> +# guest-suspend-ram.
>> Isn't checking for presence of system_wakeup redundant?
>> When query-target tells us "system_wakeup works" by returning
>> wakeup-suspend-support: true, we surely have system_wakeup (or else
>> query-target would be lying to us).
>> When it returns wakeup-suspend-support: false, it doesn't matter whether
>> we have system_wakeup.
>> Unless I'm wrong, we can simplify this to something like
>> # IMPORTANT: guest-suspend-ram requires working wakeup support in
>> # QEMU. You *must* check QMP command query-target returns
>> # wakeup-suspend-support: true before issuing this command.
> It is worth noticing that this API isn't checking for the existence of
> system_wakeup. It is checking whether there are notifiers added in
> the wakeup_notifiers QLIST.
> However, I think we can simplify the text as you suggested because that
> part seems outdated anyway. Is there any relevant scenario where
> system_wakeup will not be present?
I doubt it: we have system_wakeup since 1.1, and we've even backported
it to RHEL-6.
But even if there *was* a relevant scenario involving a QEMU that
doesn't provide system_wakeup, that QEMU will also not provide member
wakeup-suspend-support, let alone tell us wakeup-suspend-support: true,
unless somebody set out to break things on purpose. That somebody would
get to keep the pieces then.