Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > Hi, > >> * the SIZE property patch: Msg-Id:<4bb206b9.80...@collabora.co.uk> > > Fine with me.
\o/ So should I re-post that patch, or can I count on that being folded into mainline ? >> * the socket reconnect patch: Msg-Id:<4b18055b.1030...@collabora.co.uk> > > Not sure yet. Comment below... > I think it makes sense to have a separate chardev backend for it, so you > can easily hook it up to either virtio-rng or something else, i.e. > define a chardev for the egd connection like this: > > -chardev backend=egd,id=egd,server=$address,$rate-limit-options-here Yes, I like the look of that, at least in principle. > It might make sense to have the reconnect logic in the egd chardev > backend then, thereby obsoleting the socket reconnect patch. Im not sure I agree there... surely there are other things which would benefit from generic socket reconnection support (virtio-rng cant be the only driver that might want to rely on a reliable source of data via a socket in a server-farm type situation?) Do we really want to re-implement reconnection (and reconnection retry anti-flood limiting) in every single backend? Thanks for the review - if we can nail down the reconnection issue, I'll set about a rework of the patchset and resubmit :-) -Ian
