Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 00/27]: add new error format

[Luiz Capitulino]

On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 02:35:03 -0400 (EDT)
Amos Kong <address@hidden> wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> > On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 10:31:28 +0800
> > Amos Kong <address@hidden> wrote:
> > 
> > > On 01/08/12 21:29, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 19:33:27 +0800
> > > > Amos Kong<address@hidden>  wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On 31/07/12 22:44, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> > > >>> On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 18:31:41 -0300
> > > >>> Luiz Capitulino<address@hidden>   wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> [Please, read below why this is an RFC]
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> This series implements the 'Plan for error handling in QMP' as
> > > >>>> described
> > > >>>> by Anthony in this email:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Tested with
> > > >> http://repo.or.cz/w/qemu/qmp-unstable.git/shortlog/refs/heads/error/new-format/v1
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for testing Amos, but that branch is where I'm working
> > > > currently so
> > > > the code there is constantly changing. It's better to wait until
> > > > I post it
> > > > to the list.
> > > 
> > > Got it.
> > > 
> > > > Could you share your test-case, btw?
> > > 
> > > 1. start a migration listen vm
> > > x86_64-softmmu/qemu-system-x86_64 -monitor stdio -boot n -vnc :2
> > > -incoming tcp:0:1234
> > > 
> > > 2. start a migration client vm
> > > x86_64-softmmu/qemu-system-x86_64 --enable-kvm -monitor stdio -boot
> > > n
> > > -vnc :1
> > > 
> > > 3. execute migration
> > > vm2 (qemu) migrate -d tcp:0:1234
> > > vm2 (qemu) info migration
> > > 
> > > expected result: migration should complete successfully
> > 
> > This should work fine with v1 I posted yesterday.
> > 
> > Actually, master is buggy:
> > 
> >  (qemu) migrate -d tcp:0:4444
> >  migrate: Connection can not be completed immediately
> 
> 
> I thought it's a note of real socket status, not an error message.

That's not something relevant for the user to know because it's temporary,
and the user can't do anything about it anyway.

> 
> 
> >  (qemu)
> > 
> > I wonder how you did not get this on your test-case?
> 
> > Anyway, this is also fixed in v1.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
>