Re: [libvirt] PATCH: Include port number with virtio serial devices

On 06/03/2010 08:00 AM, Cole Robinson wrote: >> +++ b/tests/qemuxml2argvdata/qemuxml2argv-channel-virtio.args >> @@ -1 +1 @@ >> -LC_ALL=C PATH=/bin HOME=/home/test USER=test LOGNAME=test /usr/bin/qemu -S -M pc -m 214 -smp 1 -nographic -nodefaults -monitor unix:/tmp/test-monitor,server,nowait -no-acpi -boot c -device virtio-serial-pci,id=virtio-serial0,max_ports=16,vectors=4,bus=pci.0,addr=0x4 -device virtio-serial-pci,id=virtio-serial1,bus=pci.0,addr=0xa -hda /dev/HostVG/QEMUGuest1 -chardev pty,id=channel0 -device virtserialport,chardev=channel0,name=org.linux-kvm.port.0 -chardev pty,id=channel1 -device virtserialport,bus=virtio-serial1.0,chardev=channel1,name=org.linux-kvm.port.1 -usb -device virtio-balloon-pci,id=balloon0,bus=pci.0,addr=0x3 >> +LC_ALL=C PATH=/bin HOME=/home/test USER=test LOGNAME=test /usr/bin/qemu -S -M pc -m 214 -smp 1 -nographic -nodefaults -monitor unix:/tmp/test-monitor,server,nowait -no-acpi -boot c -device virtio-serial-pci,id=virtio-serial0,max_ports=16,vectors=4,bus=pci.0,addr=0x4 -device virtio-serial-pci,id=virtio-serial1,bus=pci.0,addr=0xa -hda /dev/HostVG/QEMUGuest1 -chardev pty,id=channel0 -device virtserialport,chardev=channel0,name=org.linux-kvm.port.0 -chardev pty,id=channel1 -device virtserialport,bus=virtio-serial1.0,nr=0,chardev=channel1,name=org.linux-kvm.port.foo -chardev pty,id=channel2 -device virtserialport,bus=virtio-serial1.0,nr=3,chardev=channel2,name=org.linux-kvm.port.bar -chardev pty,id=channel3 -device virtserialport,bus=virtio-serial0.0,nr=0,chardev=channel3,name=org.linux-kvm.port.wizz -chardev pty,id=channel4 -device virtserialport,bus=virtio-serial1.0,nr=4,chardev=channel4,name=org.linux-kvm.port.ooh -usb -device virtio-balloon-pci,id=balloon0,bus=pci.0,addr=0 x > 3 Unrelated to the actual patch review: These lines are so long that they are getting truncated at 999 bytes by mailers somewhere along the SMTP path. Is it worth rewriting these .args files to use backslash-newline line wrapping, to make it less likely to suffer from truncation when passed via email bodies?