On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 01:14:18PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote: > On (Tue) Jul 28 2009 [08:42:32], Anthony Liguori wrote: > > Amit Shah wrote: > >> Right; use virtio just as the transport and all the interesting > >> activity happens in userspaces. That was the basis with which I started. > >> I can imagine dbus doing the copy/paste, lock screen, etc. actions. > >> > >> However for libguestfs, dbus isn't an option and they already have some > >> predefined agents for each port. So libguestfs is an example for a > >> multi-port usecase for virtio-serial. > >> > > > > Or don't use dbus and use something that libguestfs is able to embed. > > The fact that libguestfs doesn't want dbus in the guest is not an > > argument for using a higher level kernel interface especially one that > > doesn't meet the requirements of the interface. > > But why do we want to limit the device to only one port? It's not too > complex supporting additional ones. > > As I see it qemu and the kernel should provide the basic abstraction for > the userspace to go do its job. Why create unnecessary barriers? > I agree. If userspace wants it may use only one channel and demultiplex messages by itself, but we shouldn't force it to. Also one of the requirements for virtio-serial is to have connect disconnect notifications. It is not possible with demultiplexing in the userspace. -- Gleb. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
