Blue Swirl <blauwir...@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Luiz Capitulino <lcapitul...@redhat.com> > wrote: >> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 21:31:18 +0300 >> Blue Swirl <blauwir...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Avi Kivity <a...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> > On 04/11/2011 08:15 PM, Blue Swirl wrote: >>> >> >>> >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Markus Armbruster<arm...@redhat.com> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> > Avi Kivity<a...@redhat.com> writes: >>> >> > >>> >> >> On 04/08/2011 12:41 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> And it's a good thing to have, but exposing this as the only API to >>> >> >>> do something as simple as generating a guest crash dump is not the >>> >> >>> friendliest thing in the world to do to users. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> nmi is a fine name for something that corresponds to a real-life nmi >>> >> >> button (often labeled "NMI"). >>> >> > >>> >> > Agree. >>> >> >>> >> We could also introduce an alias mechanism for user friendly names, so >>> >> nmi could be used in addition of full path. Aliases could be useful >>> >> for device paths as well. >>> > >>> > Yes. Perhaps limited to the human monitor. >>> >>> I'd limit all debugging commands (including NMI) to the human monitor. >> >> Why? > > Do they have any real use in production environment? Also, we should > have the freedom to change the debugging facilities (for example, to > improve some internal implementation) as we want without regard to > compatibility to previous versions.
For what it's worth, Lai (original poster) has been trying for many months to get inject-nmi into QMP, and I suspect he has a really good reason for his super-human persistence.
