[et-mgmt-tools] -parallel supported?

[Bob Tennent]

 >|>  >|>  I added
 >|>  >|>
 >|>  >|>     <parallel type='pty'>
 >|>  >|>       <source path='/dev/lp0' />
 >|>  >|>       <target port='0'/>
 >|>  >|>     </parallel>
 >|>  >|>
 >|>  >|> to the <devices> section of the relevant file in
 >|/etc/libvirt/qemu. The
 >|>  >|> parallel "hardware" shows up in virt-manager, but with - as
 >|the source
 >|>  >|> path; running the domain yields
 >|>  >|
 >|>  >|>   libvirtError: internal error Timed out while reading console
 >|startup
 >|>  >|>   output
 >|>  >|>
 >|>  >|> Same result if I use <source path='/dev/pts/2' />. If I remove the
 >|>  >|> parallel "hardware" in the virt-manager, the guest starts up OK.
 >|>  >|
 >|>  >|Your XML syntax is wrong. You specified a 'pty' but then gave it a
 >|>  >|real path which doesn't make sense. You want type='dev' instead,
 >|>  >|and the <target> element is redundant - that's an output only
 >|>  >|element at this time. So, eg
 >|>  >|
 >|>  >|     <parallel type='dev'>
 >|>  >|       <source path='/dev/lp0' />
 >|>  >|     </parallel>
 >|>  >|
 >|>
 >|> The example syntax at the libvirt.org site I was directed to is
 >|>
 >|>         <parallel type='pty'>
 >|>           <source path='/dev/pts/2'/>
 >|>           <target port='0'/>
 >|>         </parallel>
 >|>
 >|> so that should be corrected if it's "wrong".
 >|>
 >|
 >|The docs clearly explain that type='pty' is for redirection
 >|to a psuedo tty, and type='dev' is for redirection to a
 >|physical device. So in that respect, the docs are not
 >|"wrong".

I'd be grateful if you could point me to that documentation. I can't
find any reference to the difference between type 'dev' and type 'pty'
at the libvirt.org site.

In any case, crashing on an incorrect type argument suggests a
certain lack of robustness. 

 >|That quoted piece is just the example of the general syntax.
 >|It is not clearly labeled as such, but probably should be.

Your colleague suggested the example "didn't make sense." Whatever
"general syntax" might be, shouldn't the example make sense?

Bob T.