On 17/04/2015 17:52, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: >>> > > +QIOChannelSocket * >>> > > +qio_channel_socket_accept(QIOChannelSocket *ioc, >>> > > + Error **errp); >> > >> > Does it make sense for a passive socket to be a QIOChannelSocket? We >> > have already a pretty decent API in util/qemu-sockets.c, and >> > QIOChannelSocket will become more similar to qemu-sockets if you switch >> > to SocketAddress. Perhaps this function can just take a file descriptor? > I was somewhat undecided about that really - One of my todos is to see > about better integrating with qemu-sockets for the connection facilities, > so will consider this problem too.
Hmm, I guess it makes sense to have the passive socket as a QOM object, so it is okay. Paolo
