From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MJ6di-0003BT-4D for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:06:22 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MJ6dd-000379-OP for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:06:21 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=36702 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MJ6dd-00036o-D8 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:06:17 -0400 Received: from lizzard.sbs.de ([194.138.37.39]:19565) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MJ6dc-0001Yw-Ns for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:06:17 -0400 Message-ID: <4A40E156.1020404@siemens.com> Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:06:14 +0200 From: Jan Kiszka MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20090623013005.39e27923@doriath> <4A409A4D.8030605@siemens.com> <20090623105930.7718400e@doriath> In-Reply-To: <20090623105930.7718400e@doriath> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 11/11] QMP: Command-line flag to enable control mode List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Luiz Capitulino Cc: aliguori@us.ibm.com, ehabkost@redhat.com, dlaor@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, avi@redhat.com Luiz Capitulino wrote: > On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:03:09 +0200 > Jan Kiszka wrote: > >> Luiz Capitulino wrote: >>> This change adds a flag called 'control' to the already existing >>> '-monitor' command-line option. This flag can be used to enable >>> control mode. >>> >>> Its syntax is: >>> >>> qemu [...] -monitor control, >>> >>> Where is a chardev (excluding 'vc', for obvious reasons). >>> >>> For example: >>> >>> $ qemu [...] -monitor control,tcp:localhost:4444,server >>> >>> Will run QEMU in control mode, waiting for a client TCP connection >>> on localhost port 4444. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Luiz Capitulino >> At this chance, I would vote for "[PATCH 12/11] Allow multiple -monitor >> instances". I think Anthony posted such a patch before. Now we should >> really include this as your extension may block the stand-alone -monitor >> switch for the control channel, preventing to additionally set up one >> (or more) for debugging purposes. > > Do you really think that this is needed for the first version? I would > rather prefer to concentrate on protocol specification and command > porting, which will require a lot of effort. You may postpone it if it's too much work, but please have a look at http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.libvirt/12895 first as I think it should be easy to integrate. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT SE 2 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux