[virt-tools-list] [virt-viewer][PATCH] Revert "virt-viewer: set keepAlive on libvirt connection"

[Christophe Fergeau]

On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 11:01:06AM -0400, Fabiano Fidencio wrote:
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Fabiano Fidencio" <ffidenci at redhat.com>
> > To: virt-tools-list at redhat.com
> > Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 4:45:42 PM
> > Subject: Re: [virt-tools-list] [virt-viewer][PATCH] Revert "virt-viewer: set keepAlive on libvirt connection"
> > 
> > Howdy!
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Fabiano Fidêncio" <fidencio at redhat.com>
> > > To: virt-tools-list at redhat.com
> > > Cc: "Fabiano Fidêncio" <fidencio at redhat.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 2:04:33 PM
> > > Subject: [virt-viewer][PATCH] Revert "virt-viewer: set keepAlive on libvirt
> > > connection"
> > > 
> > > This reverts commit 08378ec4dc3623792c64a3bae6279eac1c3c153e.
> > > 
> > > The commit in question was done in order to fix rhbz#1164052, but has
> > > been proven that it's not necessary depending on the libvirt version on
> > > the remote host.
> > > Considering we don't want to keep a workaround that can, actually, hide
> > > a proper bug that must be fixed (or in virt-viewer, or elsewhere),
> > > reverting this patch seems the safest option for now.
> > 
> > Jonathon asked me on IRC:
> > 11:08 <~ jjongsma> fidencio, any additional context about that patch
> > reverting the keepalive?
> > 11:08 <~ jjongsma> which versions is it unnecessary for? How did you find
> > that? etc.
> > 11:13 <@ fidencio> jjongsma: hmmm. I will add more info there.
> > 
> > So, to be added to the commit message:
> > 
> > The patch was not necessary when connecting to a rhel6 host
> > (libvirt-0.10.2-54) neither connecting to a fedora22 host
> > (libvirt-1.2.13.1-2). The problem could be reproduce on rhel7 host
> > (libvirt-1.2.17-1). And these are the systems that I have installed on my
> > remote host machine.
> 
> Actually, I still can reproduce the issue on a fedora22 machine.
> Hmm. Maybe would be better adding a big comment there than reverting the patch.

Maybe it's a change of behaviour in newer libvirt releases? older ones
did not need keep alive, newer ones do?

Christophe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/virt-tools-list/attachments/20150716/b627c714/attachment.sig>