On 03/19/13 10:15, Alon Levy wrote:
>>> +vmstate_register(NULL, -1, &spice_chr_vmstate, s);
>>> +
>>
>> That is a showstopper. If there are two of these there is no
>> reliable
>> way to figure which is which.
>
> But they will both get a different state pointer s.
I mean in the migration d
> On 03/14/13 17:36, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > From: Alon Levy
> >
> > The target has not seen the guest_connected event via
> > spice_chr_guest_open or spice_chr_write, and so spice server
> > wrongly
> > assumes there is no agent active, while the client continues to
> > send
> > motion events o
On 03/14/13 17:36, Hans de Goede wrote:
> From: Alon Levy
>
> The target has not seen the guest_connected event via
> spice_chr_guest_open or spice_chr_write, and so spice server wrongly
> assumes there is no agent active, while the client continues to send
> motion events only by the agent chann
From: Alon Levy
The target has not seen the guest_connected event via
spice_chr_guest_open or spice_chr_write, and so spice server wrongly
assumes there is no agent active, while the client continues to send
motion events only by the agent channel, which the server ignores. The
net effect is that
