From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NzFAy-0001xK-UE
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Apr 2010 16:15:08 -0400
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=43393 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NzFAx-0001wY-Cx
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Apr 2010 16:15:08 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <jamie@shareable.org>) id 1NzFAv-0000jE-O4
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Apr 2010 16:15:07 -0400
Received: from mail2.shareable.org ([80.68.89.115]:43959)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <jamie@shareable.org>) id 1NzFAv-0000j2-JH
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Apr 2010 16:15:05 -0400
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 21:15:03 +0100
From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: libvirt vs. in-qemu management
Message-ID: <20100406201503.GC4510@shareable.org>
References: <B88AE7FC-34E0-4CF2-88BC-0A11071925D8@suse.de>
	<4BBA60CC.5050008@redhat.com>
	<2B33FC0A-344D-4A4D-8B2D-7E8FFBB038EF@suse.de>
	<4BBB2474.6010204@redhat.com> <4BBB2900.9010309@suse.de>
	<4BBB2BDE.4040500@redhat.com> <4BBB2E4A.90608@suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4BBB2E4A.90608@suse.de>
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@redhat.com>
Cc: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, qemu-devel Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

Alexander Graf wrote:
> > One way to avoid it is to have a rich plugin API so if some needs some
> > to, say, set up traffic control on the interface, they can write a
> > plugin to do that.
> 
> Another way would be to have an active open source community that just
> writes the support for traffic control upstream if they need it. I
> actually prefer that to a plugin API.

Not every local config quirk should go upstream, and if someone has
to edit the C source just to configure their tap interface a bit
differently, that's not a good sign.

Qemu already has a passable API for this in the form of thw network-up
and network-down scripts.  Imho much more ability to hook into many
parts of device setup that way would be good.  You don't need a rich
internal API then.

Even better if callout scripts are allowed to connect back to QMP and
tell Qemu what to do during machine setup and interesting events.

-- Jamie