----- "Gerd Hoffmann" <kra...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > +enum {
> > + SPICE_MSG_SMARTCARD_DATA = 1,
> > +
> > + SPICE_MSG_END_SMARTCARD
> > +};
> > +
> > +enum {
> > + SPICE_MSGC_SMARTCARD_DATA = 1,
> > +
> > + SPICE_MSGC_END_SMARTCARD
> > +};
>
> I don't think this is a good idea. This is just a chardev
> passthrough,
> right? If so, then we should just make it that. Name it 'chardev' or
>
> 'datapipe' or something simliar. Have a additional 'init' message to
>
> specify the kind of chardev. Then we can just reuse it when we'll
> have
> more simliar users in the future.
>
Do you think this is a better direction then adding the actual messages? (see
below)
> Or we could make this a real interface definition where each smartcard
>
> message gets its own message type.
>
Yes, I was lazy - actually let me back up a little. For the smartcard reader
device to be viable on it's own, it has to talk some protocol that is defined
outside of spice. That protocol is also a header "type/size" protocol, so it is
easy to write the spice.proto channel definition for it - that's were I was lazy
and haven't done it. I guess it's time to be less lazy.
> Oh, and shouldn't the channel-specific messages better start with
> '101'
> like all other channels do?
Yeah. Anyone know why they start at that particular number?
>
> cheers,
> Gerd
_______________________________________________
Spice-devel mailing list
Spice-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel
