From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MW3q9-0006tw-Jl for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 03:44:45 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MW3q5-0006qv-S4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 03:44:45 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=41190 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MW3q5-0006qp-Nh for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 03:44:41 -0400 Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:40877) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MW3q5-0000RK-3o for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 03:44:41 -0400 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MW3q3-0002aN-Do for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 03:44:39 -0400 Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:14:18 +0530 From: Amit Shah Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: virtio-serial: An interface for host-guest communication Message-ID: <20090729074418.GA24925@amit-x200.redhat.com> References: <1248717876-17630-1-git-send-email-amit.shah@redhat.com> <4A6E0C9E.10908@codemonkey.ws> <20090727203214.GG15020@redhat.com> <20090727204627.GA32432@shareable.org> <4A6E3BDC.8050101@codemonkey.ws> <20090728103624.GA5176@amit-x200.redhat.com> <4A6F0048.1000103@codemonkey.ws> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A6F0048.1000103@codemonkey.ws> List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org On (Tue) Jul 28 2009 [08:42:32], Anthony Liguori wrote: > Amit Shah wrote: >> Right; use virtio just as the transport and all the interesting >> activity happens in userspaces. That was the basis with which I started. >> I can imagine dbus doing the copy/paste, lock screen, etc. actions. >> >> However for libguestfs, dbus isn't an option and they already have some >> predefined agents for each port. So libguestfs is an example for a >> multi-port usecase for virtio-serial. >> > > Or don't use dbus and use something that libguestfs is able to embed. > The fact that libguestfs doesn't want dbus in the guest is not an > argument for using a higher level kernel interface especially one that > doesn't meet the requirements of the interface. But why do we want to limit the device to only one port? It's not too complex supporting additional ones. As I see it qemu and the kernel should provide the basic abstraction for the userspace to go do its job. Why create unnecessary barriers? Amit