On 03/06/12 08:56, Alon Levy wrote: > On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 08:36:34AM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >> Hi, >> >>>> How would the parallel execution facility be opaque to the implementer? >>>> screendump returns, screendump_async needs to pass a closure. You can >>>> automatically generate any amount of code, but you can only have a >>>> single function implementation with longjmp/coroutine, or having a >>>> saparate thread per command but that would mean taking locks for >>>> anything not trivial, which avoids the no-change-to-implementation. Is >>>> this what you have in mind? >>> >>> It would not be opaque to the implementer. But it would avoid >>> introducing new commands and events, instead we have a unified mechanism >>> to signal completion. >> >> Ok. We have a async mechanism today: .mhandler.cmd_async = ... >> >> I know it has its problems like no cancelation and is deprecated and >> all. But still: how about using it as interim until QAPI-based async >> monitor support is ready? We could unbreak qxl screendumps without >> having to introduce a new (but temporary!) screendump_async command + >> completion event. > > Actually, I'm not sure this doesn't reintroduce the original problem > (which I haven't been able to reproduce): > > client: screenshot <-> client libvirt <-> host libvirt > > host libvirt (screendump) <-> qemu monitor -> <- spice server <-> client
Hmm? spice client can ask for a screendump via libvirt? /me looks completely puzzled. cheers, Gerd
