qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Qemu-devel] Re: [RFC][PATCH v6 07/23] virtagent: base server definition


From: Michael Roth
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [RFC][PATCH v6 07/23] virtagent: base server definitions
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 11:55:50 -0600
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7

On 01/21/2011 10:38 AM, Jes Sorensen wrote:
diff --git a/virtagent-server.h b/virtagent-server.h
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9f68921
--- /dev/null
+++ b/virtagent-server.h
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+/*
+ * virt-agent - host/guest RPC daemon functions
+ *
+ * Copyright IBM Corp. 2010
+ *
+ * Authors:
+ *  Michael Roth<address@hidden>
+ *
+ * This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL, version 2 or later.
+ * See the COPYING file in the top-level directory.
+ *
+ */
+
+#include<xmlrpc-c/base.h>
+#include<xmlrpc-c/server.h>
+
+#define GUEST_AGENT_SERVICE_ID "virtagent"
+#define GUEST_AGENT_PATH "/tmp/virtagent-guest.sock"
+#define HOST_AGENT_SERVICE_ID "virtagent-host"
+#define HOST_AGENT_PATH "/tmp/virtagent-host.sock"
+#define VA_GETFILE_MAX 1<<  30
+#define VA_FILEBUF_LEN 16384
+#define VA_DMESG_LEN 16384

I really don't like these hard coded constants - you you have a command
line interface allowing for the change of the sockets and file names?
Otherwise you'll hit problems on the host side with concurrent runs of qemu.

Yup, that's one of the TODOs. In terms of configuration we can add parameters to the chardev to override these, but the goal here is sane defaults to avoid unnecessarily complicated invocations.


I really would like to see the dmesg stuff removed too for now as we
discussed earlier.

I think as a development/support tool it has a recently strong use case, even given it's limitations (which are not so bad....we retrieve up to a max of 16KB, possibly less depending on guest configuration, so it's not entirely predictable, but it's not dangerous. It's platform-specific, but that's handled by capabilities negotiation).

I just don't really see the downside to keeping it in.


Cheers,
Jes




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]