From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58587)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1Yj8h9-0002ZQ-Ss
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 12:00:44 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1Yj8h5-0007d8-To
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 12:00:43 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:46772)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1Yj8h5-0007cm-MC
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 12:00:39 -0400
Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com
	(int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t3HG0dD5029945
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256
	verify=FAIL)
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 12:00:39 -0400
Message-ID: <55312E21.7000901@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 18:00:33 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1429280557-8887-1-git-send-email-berrange@redhat.com>
	<1429280557-8887-24-git-send-email-berrange@redhat.com>
	<55312689.3070202@redhat.com> <20150417155222.GK23619@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150417155222.GK23619@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v1 RFC 23/34] io: add QIOChannelSocket class
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>, Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>



On 17/04/2015 17:52, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>> > > +QIOChannelSocket *
>>> > > +qio_channel_socket_accept(QIOChannelSocket *ioc,
>>> > > +                          Error **errp);
>> > 
>> > Does it make sense for a passive socket to be a QIOChannelSocket?  We
>> > have already a pretty decent API in util/qemu-sockets.c, and
>> > QIOChannelSocket will become more similar to qemu-sockets if you switch
>> > to SocketAddress.  Perhaps this function can just take a file descriptor?
> I was somewhat undecided about that really - One of my todos is to see
> about better integrating with qemu-sockets for the connection facilities,
> so will consider this problem too.

Hmm, I guess it makes sense to have the passive socket as a QOM object,
so it is okay.

Paolo