From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55676) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cvJQ9-0006IA-Df for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Apr 2017 04:02:38 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cvJQ4-0004Rt-Ez for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Apr 2017 04:02:33 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:40244) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cvJQ4-0004RV-9C for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Apr 2017 04:02:28 -0400 Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 09:02:19 +0100 From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" Message-ID: <20170404080219.GA2147@work-vm> References: <1490965817-16913-1-git-send-email-amarnath.valluri@intel.com> <20170403170738.GC2768@redhat.com> <1491240750.10884.10.camel@intel.com> <20170403173823.GD2112@work-vm> <1491248498.10884.16.camel@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1491248498.10884.16.camel@intel.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/7] Provide support for the software TPM emulator List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Patrick Ohly Cc: "Daniel P. Berrange" , Amarnath Valluri , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com * Patrick Ohly (patrick.ohly@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 / dgilbert@redhat.com / Manchester, UK