From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58562) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XW3q1-0007YP-C5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:39:42 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XW3ps-0001OW-Ay for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:39:33 -0400 Received: from mail-we0-x234.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c03::234]:58181) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XW3ps-0001ND-3s for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:39:24 -0400 Received: by mail-we0-f180.google.com with SMTP id u56so2908031wes.25 for ; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 06:39:18 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <54202685.1070309@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 15:39:17 +0200 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1411340664-26912-1-git-send-email-minyard@acm.org> <1411340664-26912-5-git-send-email-minyard@acm.org> <541FD872.8000601@redhat.com> <542020F7.5050906@acm.org> <5420234D.7000505@redhat.com> <5420247C.9030902@acm.org> In-Reply-To: <5420247C.9030902@acm.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 4/6] qemu-char: set socket filename to disconnected when not connected List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: minyard@acm.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: mjg59@srcf.ucam.org, mst@redhat.com, hwd@huawei.com, bcketchum@gmail.com, Corey Minyard , afaerber@suse.de Il 22/09/2014 15:30, Corey Minyard ha scritto: >>> >> I had to make this change, otherwise a server socket would never show >>> >> that it reconnected. I originally hadn't moved it. >> > Reconnected or connected? How does reconnection work with server >> > sockets? I guess you can then move it to patch 2. > When a server socket disconnects, it runs through the disconnect code so it > shows "disconnected". It does not call > qemu_chr_finish_socket_connection when > it reconnects, though, so it would never show the new connection. Ah, I see now what you mean. Of course for a server socket it's reconnection from a different client; it's not related to the new functionality. > I can move it to patch 2, but it seems more logical to me here, since it > doesn't really > matter until this patch. Yes, that's fine. Reviewed-by: Paolo Bonzini