Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5] libxl: add basic spice support for pv domUs

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 2014-05-16 at 16:20 +0200, Fabio Fantoni wrote:
> Il 16/05/2014 15:56, Ian Campbell ha scritto:
> > On Fri, 2014-05-16 at 15:41 +0200, Fabio Fantoni wrote:
> >> Il 16/05/2014 14:47, Ian Campbell ha scritto:
> >>> On Fri, 2014-05-16 at 14:37 +0200, Fabio Fantoni wrote:
> >>>> This patch adds basic spice support for pv domUs.
> >>>> The qemu parameters are the same as the hvm ones and they works.
> >>>> Therefore xl cfg parameters are the same as the hvm ones except that
> >>>> features not supported yet by pv domUs (vdagent and usbredirection)
> >>>> are kept disabled by default.
> >>>> It also enables vfb and vkb required to have basic spice working.
> >>> Based on your response in <53722538.80106@xxxxxxx> I'm not sure if this
> >>> an accurate description of what you are doing here. AFAICT what you are
> >>> actually doing is enabling SPICE as a backend for the PVFB device, as an
> >>> alternative to VNC and SDL. Is that correct or not?
> >> Yes,
> > In that case then these spice settings should be part of
> > libxl_device_vfb, like the vnc ones are and they should configurable in
> > xl configuration files as:
> >
> >     vfb = [ 'spice=1,spiceport=NNN' ]
> >
> > There should be no need to move the HVM spice parameters to the top
> > level of the domain configuration. I'm afraid my previous advice was
> > based on an incorrect understanding of what you were implementing
> > (derived from the commit message not being clear about what was actually
> > going on).
> >
> >> The only 2 main problem reimained with spice I think that are qxl not
> >> working on linux domUs(xen related)
> > Given the lack of clarity shown so far about what this existing patch is
> > actually doing doing I'm a little concerned about how QXL is going to
> > fit into the model in the future.
> >
> > Ian.
> >
> 
> About libxl patch for QXL support is still the same except the refresh 
> with new xen-unstable.
> My latest test is based on this source that include all my latest patches:
> https://github.com/Fantu/Xen/commits/rebase/m2r-next
> I'll repost it with updated and full noted in description.
> Regarging qxl problem on xen linux domUs I didn't found other useful 
> details to solve the problem and I not have sufficient time now for 
> advanced debug.

I wasn't talking talking about the problems with it, I was talking about
how enabling QXL in the future will fit in with the data model being
introduced here. I don't want to take spice support on the assumption
that it is just a backend for PVFB and then find out that this is a
wrong model when QXL comes to get added.

My main concern is that you don't appear to understand how the model
fits together either, and yet you keep posting patches to turn things
on. This makes me very nervous.

Ian.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel