From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JFBEu-0006Qf-Sw for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:35:44 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JFBEt-0006QE-ED for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:35:44 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JFBEt-0006QB-Cg for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:35:43 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JFBEt-0001aQ-D4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:35:43 -0500 Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:35:39 +0000 From: "Daniel P. Berrange" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] add VNC reverse connections Message-ID: <20080116163539.GA27604@redhat.com> References: <478DB1D3.60905@cs.ucla.edu> <20080116124231.GB16624@redhat.com> <478E1E0F.1040303@cs.ucla.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <478E1E0F.1040303@cs.ucla.edu> Reply-To: "Daniel P. Berrange" , qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eddie Kohler Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 07:09:03AM -0800, Eddie Kohler wrote: > Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > >We already have the ability to pass multiple flags / options to the VNC > >driver as a post-fix to the host:port pair, so I'm not a fan of introducing > >a new option as a prefix. If using existing options syntax, it could look > >like: > > > > -vnc :5500,rev > > -vnc read.cs.ucla.edu:5500,rev > > This doesn't feel like an option to me, though; rather a different means of > connecting. Among other things, in "-vnc :0", the QEMU VNC server opens > port 5900. But the client's listening port for reverse connections > defaults to 5500. "-vnc :-400,rev" is clearly insane, but it seems strange > for an option like ",rev" to change the meaning of the port field. Yes that is a valid point. It is a little unfortunate we switched to using display num instead of port num for the current VNC code. Having a syntax which makes people use negative display nums for reverse connections would suck. So reluctantly I think your original proposal may actually be better. Dan. -- |=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=| |=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=| |=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=| |=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=|