From: Ruien Zhang <email@example.com>
To: Gerd Hoffmann <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Introduce printer subsystem and USB printer device
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2022 23:31:30 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <email@example.com> (raw)
On 1/14/22 5:32 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>> This patchset introduces:
>> 1) Skeleton of QEMU printer subsystem with a dummy builtin driver.
>> 2) USB printer device emulation, with definitions in the extension of IPP-over-
>> USB .
>> 1) QEMU printer subsystem interfaces, which will be finalized with a concrete
>> backend driver.
>> 2) IPP-over-USB implementation.
> Hmm, I'm wondering what uses cases you have in mind and whenever
> it makes sense to introduce a printer subsystem?
I'm having an idea about the use case, let's discuss a bit more about it
If I want to expose some Virtual Device Interfaces (VDI) on USB-IPP
printer device to remote desktop service like spice-server, is it
rational to register these interfaces to the printer subsystem which
will play as a middle layer? A concrete example is QXL virtual GPU with
VDI between QEMU and spice-server. What if other QEMU-emulated devices
also want to take part in the spice service routine? This can be
achieved naturally by the registered handlers in the subsystems, which
further exchange data with the underlying devices (USB-IPP printer here,
for example). Nevertheless, I totally agree that it is straightforward
to make devices like USB-IPP printer to be passed-through in local
environments, which prompts me to add the uri-option. But I want it to
be compatible with other use cases, like this one.
I'll give this idea a try.
> Having an ipp-over-usb device looks useful, but the only use case I can
> see is to allow guests access a network printer. I can't see the
> benefits of a printer subsystem, especially in a world where non-ipp
> printers are going extinct. We would most likely have just a single
> kind of printer backend, where the only job qemu will have is to
> forwarding requests and replies, maybe with some http header rewriting.
> Likewise usb would be the one and only device (parallel ports are long
> gone in printers). So the indirection added by a printer subsystem
> doesn't buy us anything because we just don't need that flexibility.
> I'd suggest to pass the url directly to the device instead:
> qemu -device usb-ipp-printer,url=ipp://hostname/ipp/printer
> take care,
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-01-15 15:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-01-13 11:56 [PATCH 0/2] Introduce printer subsystem and USB printer device Ruien Zhang
2022-01-13 11:56 ` [PATCH 1/2] printer: Introduce printer subsystem Ruien Zhang
2022-01-13 11:56 ` [PATCH 2/2] usb-printer: Introduce USB printer class Ruien Zhang
2022-01-14 9:32 ` [PATCH 0/2] Introduce printer subsystem and USB printer device Gerd Hoffmann
2022-01-14 13:38 ` Ruien Zhang
2022-01-15 15:31 ` Ruien Zhang [this message]
2022-01-17 7:17 ` Gerd Hoffmann
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.