On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 09:47:52AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> >+void qxl_spice_update_area_async(PCIQXLDevice *qxl, uint32_t surface_id,
> >+ struct QXLRect *area, struct QXLRect
> >*dirty_rects,
> >+ uint32_t num_dirty_rects, uint32_t
> >clear_dirty_region,
> >+ int async)
> >+{
> >+ qemu_mutex_lock(&qxl->ssd.wlock);
> >+ if (async) {
> >+ qxl->ssd.worker->update_area_async(qxl->ssd.worker, surface_id,
> >area, dirty_rects,
> >+ num_dirty_rects, clear_dirty_region);
> >+ } else {
> >+ qxl->ssd.worker->update_area(qxl->ssd.worker, surface_id, area,
> >dirty_rects,
> >+ num_dirty_rects, clear_dirty_region);
> >+ }
> >+ qemu_mutex_unlock(&qxl->ssd.wlock);
> >+}
>
> We need a plan to handle backward compatibility here. Older
> libspice-server versions don't have the update_area_async op.
> Option one is to just not support async mode with older libraries.
> Option two is to handle the request syncronously even though the
> guest has asked for async. I'd tend to pick option one, that makes
> things easier with S3 support because we just can't do that in any
> way with an older libspice-server.
will do.
>
> > switch (io_port) {
> >+ case QXL_IO_UPDATE_AREA_ASYNC:
> >+ case QXL_IO_NOTIFY_OOM_ASYNC:
> >+ case QXL_IO_MEMSLOT_ADD_ASYNC:
> >+ case QXL_IO_CREATE_PRIMARY_ASYNC:
> >+ case QXL_IO_DESTROY_PRIMARY_ASYNC:
> >+ case QXL_IO_DESTROY_SURFACE_ASYNC:
> >+ case QXL_IO_DESTROY_ALL_SURFACES_ASYNC:
> >+ async = 1;
> >+ if (d->current_async != QXL_UNDEFINED_IO) {
> >+ qxl_guest_bug(d, "%d async started before last (%d) complete\n",
> >+ io_port, d->current_async);
>
> Better return here, ignoring the invalid request?
I wasn't sure. Both are bound to be buggy. But yeah, I guess returning at least
makes qemu correct (especially if I don't use the cookies to remember all
outstanding
operations).
>
> cheers,
> Gerd
