From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:38328) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UcGdX-0006bm-Pr for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 14 May 2013 10:55:34 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UcGdW-0000QX-53 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 14 May 2013 10:55:31 -0400 Received: from mail-ob0-x235.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4003:c01::235]:36300) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UcGdV-0000QT-Sa for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 14 May 2013 10:55:30 -0400 Received: by mail-ob0-f181.google.com with SMTP id dn14so668157obc.12 for ; Tue, 14 May 2013 07:55:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Anthony Liguori In-Reply-To: <51923121.3040403@redhat.com> References: <1366346658-4680-1-git-send-email-akong@redhat.com> <51923121.3040403@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 09:55:26 -0500 Message-ID: <87a9nx6275.fsf@codemonkey.ws> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] monitor: intervally send down events to guest in hold time List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Laszlo Ersek , Amos Kong Cc: lcapitulino@redhat.com, kraxel@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org Laszlo Ersek writes: > Hi, > > On 04/19/13 06:44, Amos Kong wrote: >> (qemu) sendkey a 1000 >> >> Current design is that qemu only send one down event to guest, >> and delay sometime, then send one up event. In this case, only >> key can be identified by guest. >> >> This patch changed qemu to intervally send down events to guest >> in the hold time, the interval is 100ms. >> >> (qemu) sendkey a 1000 >> >> qemu will send 9 down events, 1 up event to guest, we can see >> 9 'a' in guest screen. >> >> Signed-off-by: Amos Kong >> --- >> This patch based on Luiz's qmp-unstable/queue/qmp >> >> Signed-off-by: Amos Kong >> --- >> hmp-commands.hx | 4 +++- >> qmp-commands.hx | 3 ++- >> ui/input.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------ >> 3 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > > What's the status of this patch if I may ask? 1) It's unclear if this is the right solution. If key repeat is done in the PS/2 controller, then that's where the logic here should be. 2) It's a compat breaker from a QMP perspective. Regards, Anthony Liguori > > Thanks, > Laszlo