Hi Octavian,

You should send a new version with the changes requested by Markus. (we
might miss 9.1 though)

On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 1:48 PM Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote:

> Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> writes:
>
> > On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 at 07:15, Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Looks like this one fell through the cracks.
> >>
> >> Octavian Purdila <ta...@google.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > Add path option to the pty char backend which will create a symbolic
> >> > link to the given path that points to the allocated PTY.
> >> >
> >> > This avoids having to make QMP or HMP monitor queries to find out what
> >> > the new PTY device path is.
> >>
> >> QMP commands chardev-add and chardev-change return the information you
> >> want:
> >>
> >>     # @pty: name of the slave pseudoterminal device, present if and only
> >>     #     if a chardev of type 'pty' was created
> >>
> >> So does HMP command chardev-add.  HMP chardev apparently doesn't, but
> >> that could be fixed.
> >>
> >> So, the use case is basically the command line, right?
> >
> >> The feature feels rather doubtful to me, to be honest.
> >
> > The command line is an important use-case, though. Not every
> > user of QEMU is libvirt with a QMP/HMP connection readily
> > to hand that they would prefer to use for all configuration...
>
> In general yes.  But what are the use cases for this one?
>
> To me, specifying path=/mumble/symlink plus the bother of cleaning up
> stale ones doesn't feel like much of an improvement over reading the pty
> name from "info chardev".  I guess I'm missing something.  Tell me!
>
> If we decide we want this, then the QMP interface needs to be fixed:
> Call the argument @path for consistency, and document it properly.
> Actually straightforward, just create a new struct instead of pressing
> ChardevHostdev into service.
>
> Some advice on robust use of @path could be useful, in particular on
> guarding against QEMU leaving stale links behind.
>
> Additional decision: whether to extend the old-style syntax.
>
>
>

-- 
Marc-André Lureau

Reply via email to