On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 02:52:27PM +0100, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 04:01:46PM +0100, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: >> >> I don't think the inconsistency is significant enough and is not >> >> actually introduced by these patches themselves. Libosinfo is just >> >> saying "these devices are supported by the OS" with these patches and >> >> if Boxes or qemu (or other apps) add a slightly different device based >> >> on this information, that is not a fault of libosinfo. >> > >> > Yes, this would be Boxes/qemu faults for not following what libosinfo >> > told it to and adding a USB mouse when libosinfo never told it this >> > specific mouse was supported. In this patch what you really are trying >> > to say is that it's able to support any USB mouse, not the VMWare one. >> >> Huh? How so? Your last sentence is contradicting the previous one. > > This patch is adding a specific device definition (QEMU supports a > specific USB mouse provided by VMWare). > What you need/really want in this series is a way to say "QEMU supports > HID devices whose protocol is "Mouse" " Sure, how do I do that? I already suggested that I can instead add the exact devices qemu uses even if they are not properly registered. If I had an easy way to find out if there really is any signficant enough difference between these two different set of devices, it would have made things easy but I failed to find any documentation that could clarify this. >> Maybe but as I tried to explain before, the patches themselves are >> good unless you have some objections on them (rather than how I intend >> to use them). > > Adding something which does not make a lot of sense with the explicit > goal of letting an application use that as meaning something different > than what is intended is not very compelling. I'd rather we provide > application developers with what they need. I'm willing to re-write the patch(es) to add the devices qemu adds. >> Besides, I really don't think its worth me spending even more hours >> trying to debug what exactly is this magical combination that makes XP >> break, keeping in mind that: > > Well, it's sad that you are not interested in reporting a potential bug > in QEMU USB emulation, or memory corruption during virtio driver > installation, or ... This could be as much a WinXP bug as just a > symptom of a bug in something we can fix. Not about my interest, but for reasons I mentioned in my previous mail, mainly lack of time. If you have time, you are more than welcome to spend it on concluding this investigation to its end. -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) ________________________________________ Befriend GNOME: http://www.gnome.org/friends/ _______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
