Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 5/7] conf: spice: Do more automation if autoport is requested

On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 10:38:26AM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote: > On 04/24/13 10:19, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 08:57:10PM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote: >>> On 04/23/13 18:21, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: >>>> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 03:46:12PM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote: >>>>> With autoport enabled, both ports were alocated. With enabling >>>>> defaultMode or setting separate channel modes one of the ports may not >>>>> be needed. This will allow later on doing this kind of change. >>>>> --- >>>>> docs/formatdomain.html.in | 2 +- >>>>> src/conf/domain_conf.c | 5 ----- >>>>> 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/docs/formatdomain.html.in b/docs/formatdomain.html.in >>>>> index 888c005..bb75943 100644 >>>>> --- a/docs/formatdomain.html.in >>>>> +++ b/docs/formatdomain.html.in >>>>> @@ -3470,7 +3470,7 @@ qemu-kvm -net nic,model=? /dev/null >>>>> while <code>tlsPort</code> gives an alternative secure >>>>> port number. The <code>autoport</code> attribute is the >>>>> new preferred syntax for indicating autoallocation of >>>>> - both port numbers. The <code>listen</code> attribute is >>>>> + needed port numbers. The <code>listen</code> attribute is >>>>> an IP address for the server to listen >>>>> on. The <code>passwd</code> attribute provides a SPICE >>>>> password in clear text. The <code>keymap</code>

>> If we're allocating ports then we *must* be setting autoport='yes'. >> Having port='1' and tlsPort='-1' and autoport='no' is a non-sensical >> configuration. > > Okay, that is fair enough. > > In that case, is it okay not to allocate both ports if the > configuration doesn't require it even if we did so before? Or do we > need to have an option to force allocation of both TLS and non-tls > port even if it's not needed? Sure, we don't need to allocate both ports, if TLS is disabled in libvirtd, or if the configuration does not otherwise require it