> On 10/25/12 14:27, Alon Levy wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Alon Levy <al...@redhat.com> > > Looks sane at a quick glance. > > But: how far we wanna take this? Add checks to qxl for each and > every > assert() guests can trigger in spice-server? So we end up > sanity-checking everything twice long-term? > > I think instead we'll need a way for spice-server to report back > errors > to qxl. So spice-server would just notify qxl and go on (or stop > processing until reset) instead of aborting. qxl in turn will notify > the guest.
Yes I totally agree but never got around to doing it. > > [ The alternative would be to basically move server/red_parse_qxl.c > into the qemu codebase. I don't think we want that because that > would make a bunch of data structures which are spice-server > internal > today (for good reasons) a libspice-server ABI+API. ] > > cheers, > Gerd >
