Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] libxl: Implement basic video device selection

Stefan Bader wrote: > Re-pushing this as the old thread got rather stale. Thanks. > Some of the > VFB setup went in a bug fix. Not sure I missed a detail in rebasing > bug the keyboard setting may be the only thing missing... > Yes, agreed. > -Stefan > > [v2: Check return code of VIR_STRDUP and fix indentation] > [v3: Split out VRAM fixup and return error for unsupported video type] > [v4: Re-arrange code and move VFB setup into libxlMakeVfbList] > [v5: Rebased against head which already had some VFB setup code] > > >From b3ff8f4c658d29f15e673af88b9ae2fdfa3c1317 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Stefan Bader <stefan.bader(a)canonical.com&gt; > Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:01:18 +0100 > Subject: [PATCH] libxl: Implement basic video device selection > > This started as an investigation into an issue where libvirt (using the > libxl driver) and the Xen host, like an old couple, could not agree on > who is responsible for selecting the VNC port to use. > > Things usually (and a bit surprisingly) did work because, just like that > old couple, they had the same idea on what to do by default. However it > was possible that this ended up in a big argument. > > The problem is that display information exists in two different places: > in the vfbs list and in the build info. And for launching the device model, > only the latter is used. But that never gets initialized from libvirt. So > Xen allows the device model to select a default port while libvirt thinks > it has told Xen that this is done by libvirt (though the vfbs config). > > While fixing that, I made a stab at actually evaluating the configuration > of the video device. So that it is now possible to at least decide between > a Cirrus or standard VGA emulation and to modify the VRAM within certain > limits using libvirt. > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Bader <stefan.bader(a)canonical.com&gt; > --- > src/libxl/libxl_conf.c | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 50 insertions(+) > This patch suffers the same issues as the last version. And when commenting on that version, I promised to work on a followup to address my concerns https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2014-July/msg00931.html

Your repost poked me into reworking my first attempt, the result of which is below. I should probably look at a sensible split-up of these patches that would be easier to review, but in the meantime comments on my followup would be appreciated. With both patches, my tests are passing and my concerns are subdued :-).

Regards, Jim