On Mon, 2017-04-03 at 18:38 +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > Or you could just remove the spawning code and use existing sockets; less > code!
That would be harder to use reliably in the automated testing that this feature is targeting. With this mechanism, it is guaranteed that both processes notice when the other dies because the connection gets disconnected. There's never a time period where one process listens for a connection from a process that might have died already, or never got started. It's also easier that the scripts calling qemu only need to deal with one process, as before, and just need to pass some additional parameters. Can we agree that both usage models are valid and thus support both? -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter.
