On Do, 2015-11-12 at 09:23 +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> writes: > > > We've had 'x-input-send-event' since 2.3, with no further > > changes to the interface other than tweaks in the previous patch > > to the spelling of the enum constants ('X' and 'WheelUp' changed > > to 'x' and 'wheel-up'). > > > > What's more, changing the spelling of enum constants is not easy > > to introspect prior to 2.5; so a client that was relying on the > > experimental command can't easily tell which spelling is expected. > > But 'query-commands' works in all qemu versions that supported > > the command, so renaming the command now makes it an easy thing > > to determine which spelling of the enum values to use. > > > > Thus, it's time to promote this interface to stable. > > The x- goes back to commit df5b2ad: > > input: move input-send-event into experimental namespace > > Ongoing discussions on how we are going to specify the console, > so tag the command as experiental so we can refine things in > the 2.3 development cycle. > > Have we settled "how we are going to specify the console"? If yes, > commit, please. If no, I'm afraid the command should stay experimental.
Good question. I don't think so. IIRC the question was whenever we'll leave it as-is (console=<index>), or whenever we'll do something like display=<id>,head=<nr> instead. The latter would be consistent with how we are doing input routing, i.e. grouping display and input devices to a seat for multiseat setups (see docs/multiseat.txt for more details). The consoles are already present in the qom tree as /backend/console[<index>] nodes, and they have device + head children. So qom users can map console=<index> to display=<id>,head=<nr> and visa versa already. So from a functionality point of view it doesn't really matter, it is largely a matter of taste ... cheers, Gerd