* Patrick Ohly (patrick.o...@intel.com) wrote: > 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?
Yep, that's fine. Dave > -- > 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. > > > -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
