Until now we used only the agent to change the monitor count and each
monitor resolution. This patch introduces the qemu part of using the
device as the mediator instead of the agent via virtio-serial.
Spice (>=0.11.5) calls the new QXLInterface::client_monitors_config,
which returns wether the in
> Hi,
>
> On 09/11/2012 03:05 PM, Alon Levy wrote:
> >>> ok, I'm missing something here. (and trying to catch up via Vol
> >>> 3A
> >>> is taking too long).
> >>> I thought the order is:
> >>> (1) qemu raises interrupt
> >>> (2) qemu calls kvm ioctl
> >>> (3) guest interrupt handler
> >>> (4) gues
Hi,
On 09/11/2012 03:05 PM, Alon Levy wrote:
ok, I'm missing something here. (and trying to catch up via Vol 3A
is taking too long).
I thought the order is:
(1) qemu raises interrupt
(2) qemu calls kvm ioctl
(3) guest interrupt handler
(4) guest clears interrupt by writing ~0 to qxl
ram_header->
> > ok, I'm missing something here. (and trying to catch up via Vol 3A
> > is taking too long).
> > I thought the order is:
> > (1) qemu raises interrupt
> > (2) qemu calls kvm ioctl
> > (3) guest interrupt handler
> > (4) guest clears interrupt by writing ~0 to qxl
> > ram_header->int_mask.
> > (5
> ok, I'm missing something here. (and trying to catch up via Vol 3A is taking
> too long).
> I thought the order is:
> (1) qemu raises interrupt
> (2) qemu calls kvm ioctl
> (3) guest interrupt handler
> (4) guest clears interrupt by writing ~0 to qxl ram_header->int_mask.
> (5) qemu detects this
> Hi,
>
> > This will need spice-server <-> qemu/hw/qxl.c coordination, but I
> > assume we
> > will need some changes there anyway to set
> > QXL_INTERRUPT_CLIENT_MONITORS_CONFIG,
> > the qemu/hw/qxl.c function patching the MonitorsConfig into the
> > romspace,
> > and setting the irq in int_pend
Hi,
> This will need spice-server <-> qemu/hw/qxl.c coordination, but I assume we
> will need some changes there anyway to set
> QXL_INTERRUPT_CLIENT_MONITORS_CONFIG,
> the qemu/hw/qxl.c function patching the MonitorsConfig into the romspace,
> and setting the irq in int_pending, could return wh
Hi,
On 09/11/2012 02:03 PM, Alon Levy wrote:
Hi,
Sorry for top posting, but trying to summarize this thread here.
I must say I like Gerd's approach, as it unifies code paths mostly,
instead of having yet another interface where we do 2 way
capabilities
negotiation, with all the extra test matr
> > Hi,
> >
> > Sorry for top posting, but trying to summarize this thread here.
> >
> > I must say I like Gerd's approach, as it unifies code paths mostly,
> > instead of having yet another interface where we do 2 way
> > capabilities
> > negotiation, with all the extra test matrix entries that
On 09/11/12 13:29, Alon Levy wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
I don't think an explicit handshake via
QXL_IO_CLIENT_MONITORS_CONFIG_DONE is a good idea.
>>>
>>> Why? I don't see the below as being better - it just moves the
>>> checking to the guest, and racily.
>>
>> It is more robust.
>
> I sugge
> Hi,
>
> Sorry for top posting, but trying to summarize this thread here.
>
> I must say I like Gerd's approach, as it unifies code paths mostly,
> instead of having yet another interface where we do 2 way
> capabilities
> negotiation, with all the extra test matrix entries that would entice
> f
Hi,
Sorry for top posting, but trying to summarize this thread here.
I must say I like Gerd's approach, as it unifies code paths mostly,
instead of having yet another interface where we do 2 way capabilities
negotiation, with all the extra test matrix entries that would entice
for full testing,
> Hi,
>
> >> I don't think an explicit handshake via
> >> QXL_IO_CLIENT_MONITORS_CONFIG_DONE is a good idea.
> >
> > Why? I don't see the below as being better - it just moves the
> > checking to the guest, and racily.
>
> It is more robust.
I suggested a way for it to be as robust - I take rob
Hi,
>> I don't think an explicit handshake via
>> QXL_IO_CLIENT_MONITORS_CONFIG_DONE is a good idea.
>
> Why? I don't see the below as being better - it just moves the checking to
> the guest, and racily.
It is more robust. We don't have to keep state in qxl for the
handshake, one less oppor
> On 09/11/12 08:56, Alon Levy wrote:
> > Until now we used only the agent to change the monitor count and
> > each
> > monitor resolution. This patch introduces the qemu part of using
> > the
> > device as the mediator instead of the agent via virtio-serial.
> >
> > Spice (>=0.11.5) calls the new
On 09/11/12 08:56, Alon Levy wrote:
> Until now we used only the agent to change the monitor count and each
> monitor resolution. This patch introduces the qemu part of using the
> device as the mediator instead of the agent via virtio-serial.
>
> Spice (>=0.11.5) calls the new QXLInterface::clien
Until now we used only the agent to change the monitor count and each
monitor resolution. This patch introduces the qemu part of using the
device as the mediator instead of the agent via virtio-serial.
Spice (>=0.11.5) calls the new QXLInterface::client_monitors_config,
generating an interrupt QXL
17 matches
Mail list logo
