On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 08:13:19AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 10/21/2010 08:03 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > >On 10/21/10 08:36, Alon Levy wrote: > >>v2->v3 changes: > >> * add configure parameter > >> * fix docs > >> > >>v2 message: > >>This patchset uses id like device_del for attaching/detaching usb > >>devices. The first two patches ready the way: > >> 1. makes qdev_find_recursive non static and in qdev.h > >> 2. adds a usb_device_by_id which goes over the usb buses calling > >> qdev_find_recursive > >> 3. adds the commands that use usb_device_by_id > >> > >>Alon Levy (3): > >> qdev: make qdev_find_recursive public > >> usb: add public usb_device_by_id > >> monitor: add usb_attach and usb_detach (v2) > >> > > > >Acked-by: Gerd Hoffmann <kra...@redhat.com> > > Okay, I am still confused about the use-case for this and I don't > see any further explanation in the commit messages. I've seen > "debugging" but can you be a bit more specific about which cases > it's needed for?
To elaborate a little more, when using a certificates based card there is no hardware event (i.e. removing/inserting the physical card) that causes a usb_detach/attach to the card (both in passthru and emulated), but otoh certificates is good for testing since it decouples it from NSS/tcp. So I needed some way to emulate an insert/remove, and I saw usb_del, which was pretty close, and voila. This is not the same as card remove/reinsert, but it is exactly what will happen to the guest when spicec connects/disconnects, since I detach devices on disconnect and attach on connect. > > This is just adding a HMP command. Is that the right approach or > was that an unintentional consequence of rebasing post-HMP/QMP > split? > > Regards, > > Anthony Liguori > > > > >cheers, > > Gerd > > > > > >
