From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1N0IBw-0007Rk-FO for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:08:12 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1N0IBt-0007Px-1y for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:08:12 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=41225 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1N0IBs-0007Ps-PS for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:08:08 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:1542) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1N0IBr-00032i-Nl for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:08:08 -0400 Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:08:00 +0100 From: "Daniel P. Berrange" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] new SDL keyboard shortcuts to start and stop VM Message-ID: <20091020170800.GG32538@redhat.com> References: <4ADCE635.4060604@codemonkey.ws> <4ADD9388.8040206@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4ADD9388.8040206@redhat.com> Reply-To: "Daniel P. Berrange" List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Kevin Wolf Cc: Mulyadi Santosa , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:40:08PM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 20.10.2009 00:20, schrieb Anthony Liguori: > > Mulyadi Santosa wrote: > >> IMO, it would be faster if we provide keyboard shortcuts that will > >> stop and resume VM execution right from SDL guest interface, rather > >> than switching to console monitor first and type "s" or "c" > >> respectively. > >> > > > > Is this really common of an operation that you would need an escape key > > for it? > > > > Why are you so frequently stopping and continuing a guest? > > Why are you all trying to explain to him that actually he doesn't want > to have this feature? I could have used it, too, at times (stop the > guest to have enough time to attach gdb, for example). There are other > ways to do it (although they are not as simple) and I used them, but > that doesn't make this feature less useful. > > Does it take anything away for you? Or do you have plans to use those > keys otherwise? If not, why not add a feature that some might find > useful, even though others don't? The problem with adding lots of magic key-sequences, is that the more you add, the more likely they are to clash with something that the guest OS wants to use. You may make this use case work, but break someone else's use case. Thus, IMHO, magic key sequences should be kept to the bare minimum neccessary to access functionality for which there is no other viable access method. Regards, Daniel -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|