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

[Peter Krempa]

On 04/24/13 10:42, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> 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
>

Great, in that case I'll incorporate the doc hunk from this patch into 
the next one in this series as that patch makes this change and I'll 
drop this one.

Peter