qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3] qxl: add QXL_IO_MONITORS_CONFIG_ASYNC


From: Alon Levy
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3] qxl: add QXL_IO_MONITORS_CONFIG_ASYNC
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 17:18:15 +0300
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2011-07-01)

On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 03:50:12PM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> On 08/09/12 15:41, Alon Levy wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 09:31:19AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> >>> diff --git a/configure b/configure
> >>> index cef0a71..5fcd315 100755
> >>> --- a/configure
> >>> +++ b/configure
> >>> @@ -2630,7 +2630,7 @@ EOF
> >>>    spice_cflags=$($pkg_config --cflags spice-protocol spice-server 
> >>> 2>/dev/null)
> >>>    spice_libs=$($pkg_config --libs spice-protocol spice-server 
> >>> 2>/dev/null)
> >>>    if $pkg_config --atleast-version=0.8.2 spice-server >/dev/null 2>&1 && 
> >>> \
> >>> -     $pkg_config --atleast-version=0.8.1 spice-protocol > /dev/null 2>&1 
> >>> && \
> >>> +     $pkg_config --atleast-version=0.12.0 spice-protocol > /dev/null 
> >>> 2>&1 && \
> >>
> >> I'd prefer to not require cutting-edge spice bits to build ...
> > 
> > I only increased the protocol requirement, not the server.
> 
> Distros tend to update those in sync, so this doesn't help much for the
> average user, this change would likely cause spice detection fail on
> almost every released distro ...

You're right. This would be solved with a submodule.

> 
> > Meanwhile I'll add a define based on the pkg-config spice-protocol
> > version, which I can test from hw/qxl.c, since the commit adding
> > QXL_IO_MONITORS_CONFIG_ASYNC didn't introduce any new define I can
> > check.
> 
> Just checking "SPICE_SERVER_VERSION >= 0x000b01" doesn't work?  I'd
> expect spice-server 0.11.1+ having a dependency on a recent enougth
> spice-protocol so you can expect QXL_IO_MONITORS_CONFIG_ASYNC being
> present then, no?

Since spice-server now uses submodules, it doesn't check for an external
spice-protocol, so no.

> 
> thanks,
>   Gerd
> 



reply via email to

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