From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NUj0w-0007dI-VW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:50:39 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NUj0r-0007ak-Ly for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:50:38 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=53897 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NUj0r-0007af-Hk for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:50:33 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:17563) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NUj0q-00031y-L3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:50:33 -0500 Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:19:23 +0530 From: Amit Shah Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 5/8] virtio-serial-bus: Add support for buffering guest output, throttling guests Message-ID: <20100112154923.GB28039@amit-x200.redhat.com> References: <20100108050351.GB8999@amit-x200.redhat.com> <20100108133503.GA19328@shareable.org> <20100111083443.GA6061@amit-x200.redhat.com> <20100111104553.GA4746@shareable.org> <20100111110410.GA13658@amit-x200.redhat.com> <20100111233356.GB30714@shareable.org> <20100112071612.GB19438@amit-x200.redhat.com> <4B4C8EA4.9080106@codemonkey.ws> <20100112151315.GA28039@amit-x200.redhat.com> <4B4C996F.6030909@codemonkey.ws> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B4C996F.6030909@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 On (Tue) Jan 12 2010 [09:46:55], Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 01/12/2010 09:13 AM, Amit Shah wrote: >> On (Tue) Jan 12 2010 [09:00:52], Anthony Liguori wrote: >> >>> On 01/12/2010 01:16 AM, Amit Shah wrote: >>> >>>> BTW I don't really want this too, I can get rid of it if everyone agrees >>>> we won't support clipboard writes> 4k over vnc or if there's a better >>>> idea. >>>> >>>> >>> Why bother trying to preserve message boundaries? I think that's the >>> fundamental question. >>> >> For the vnc clipboard copy-paste case, I explained that in the couple of >> mails before in this thread. >> > > It didn't make sense to me. I think the assumption has to be that the > client can send corrupt data and the host has to handle it. You mean if the guest kernel sends the wrong flags? Or doesn't set the flags? Can you explain what scenario you're talking about? Amit