From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Corey Bryant Subject: Re: KVM call agenda for Tuesday, July 3rd Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 09:14:22 -0400 Message-ID: <4FF2F02E.4020401@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <874npqwjqe.fsf@elfo.mitica> <4FF1DB7D.1000006@redhat.com> <4FF2E692.7050900@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Eric Blake , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, KVM devel mailing list , quintela@redhat.com To: Kevin Wolf Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4FF2E692.7050900@redhat.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 07/03/2012 08:33 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 02.07.2012 19:33, schrieb Eric Blake: >> On 07/02/2012 04:16 AM, Juan Quintela wrote: >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> Please send in any agenda items you are interested in covering. >> >> Can we discuss the future of 'getfd', the possibility of 'pass-fd', or >> even the enhancement of all existing monitor commands to take an >> optional 'nfds' JSON argument for atomic management of fd passing? >> Which commands need to reopen a file with different access, and do we >> bite the bullet to special case all of those commands to allow fd >> passing or can we make qemu_open() coupled with high-level fd passing >> generic enough to satisfy all of our reopen needs? > > Sure we can, at least if Corey will attend the call. Otherwise I guess > it's better to keep the discussion on the mailing list. > > Kevin > I'll be on the call. Thanks for getting this on the agenda. -- Regards, Corey