When editing guest's XML (on QEMU), it was possible to add multiple listen elements into graphics parent element. However QEMU does not support listening on multiple addresses. Configuration is tested for multiple 'listen address' and if positive, an error is raised.

--- src/qemu/qemu_process.c | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_process.c b/src/qemu/qemu_process.c index 9e6a9ae..1810e6c 100644 --- a/src/qemu/qemu_process.c +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_process.c @@ -3934,6 +3934,14 @@ int qemuProcessStart(virConnectPtr conn, } graphics->listens[0].fromConfig = true; } + /* multiple listen addresses are unsupported configuration in qemu + */

+ else if (graphics->nListens > 1) {

+ virReportError(VIR_ERR_CONFIG_UNSUPPORTED, "%s", + _("QEMU does not support multiple listen " + "addresses for a domain."));

On 2014/8/14 20:44, Erik Skultety wrote: > When editing guest's XML (on QEMU), it was possible to add multiple > listen elements into graphics parent element. However QEMU does not > support listening on multiple addresses. Configuration is tested for > multiple 'listen address' and if positive, an error is raised. > --- > src/qemu/qemu_process.c | 8 ++++++++ > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_process.c b/src/qemu/qemu_process.c > index 9e6a9ae..1810e6c 100644 > --- a/src/qemu/qemu_process.c > +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_process.c > @@ -3934,6 +3934,14 @@ int qemuProcessStart(virConnectPtr conn, > } > graphics->listens[0].fromConfig = true; > } > + /* multiple listen addresses are unsupported configuration in qemu > + */ > + else if (graphics->nListens > 1) { > + virReportError(VIR_ERR_CONFIG_UNSUPPORTED, "%s", > + _("QEMU does not support multiple listen " > + "addresses for a domain.")); > + goto cleanup; > + } > } > } > Think about the libvirt updating scenario. VMs with such XMLs are already defined and running. After the libvirt updating to a new version which this patch works, the VMs can't be started after shutdown. I have a question to confirm. Is this a regression or taken as an improvement ? (I'm inclined to accept it.)