From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [autotest] vm creation fails (not) Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 14:33:44 +0300 Message-ID: <4A7ABF98.2070309@redhat.com> References: <1573918025.1555281249555417027.JavaMail.root@zmail05.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Gerd Hoffmann , KVM list To: Michael Goldish Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:49871 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751528AbZHFL2K (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Aug 2009 07:28:10 -0400 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n76BSApd016342 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2009 07:28:10 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1573918025.1555281249555417027.JavaMail.root@zmail05.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 08/06/2009 01:43 PM, Michael Goldish wrote: > > I do exactly that, but with named pipes. Are unix domain sockets better? > (The pipes are not causing any trouble AFAIK.) > They're a little better since you can pass file descriptors (like the monitor fd) over them. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function