From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Lzu5G-0005Vt-64 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 01 May 2009 10:51:26 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Lzu5B-0005SX-PX for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 01 May 2009 10:51:25 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=41506 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Lzu5B-0005SU-Hc for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 01 May 2009 10:51:21 -0400 Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.151]:48316) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Lzu5B-0004JH-5q for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 01 May 2009 10:51:21 -0400 Received: from d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.227]) by e33.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n41EnbK7010903 for ; Fri, 1 May 2009 08:49:37 -0600 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (d03av01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.167]) by d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.2) with ESMTP id n41EpJPS196456 for ; Fri, 1 May 2009 08:51:19 -0600 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n41EpJS7028897 for ; Fri, 1 May 2009 08:51:19 -0600 Message-ID: <49FB0C57.9020501@us.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 09:51:03 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] PATCH: enabling TCP keepalives - v3 References: <49F9FEBA.6050901@gmail.com> <49FB0AA8.90103@us.ibm.com> <49FB0B67.5070305@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <49FB0B67.5070305@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: David Ahern Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org David Ahern wrote: > Missed that. Forgot to add net.h to vnc.c. > > Before I re-send a patch, what's the feeling regarding enabling this all > the time versus a command line option to control it? > > david > I'm on the fence. It's not something I think is extremely common and it seems like we're going to great lengths to fix up one persons broken configuration. However, it really doesn't do any harm and I can understand the argument for it. So far, I haven't seen anyone raise an issue with why this would not be a reasonable thing to do. FWIW, in my opinion, it's an all or nothing thing. It's not a knob I think we ought to be exposing. -- Regards, Anthony Liguori