From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Mike D. Day" Subject: Re: A migration framework for external devices Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 13:35:53 -0500 Message-ID: <43EB8B89.80909@us.ibm.com> References: <43EB766A.30701@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <43EB766A.30701@us.ibm.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Anthony Liguori Cc: "Cihula, Joseph" , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Stefan Berger , "Scarlata, Vincent R" , Ronald Perez List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Anthony Liguori wrote: > all). It also allows you to do clever things like vary the port which > should add to the security of migration. Allowing the target to choose the port is good practice but not added security. > Why do plugins have to exist? The only reason to have a plugin > mechanism is to be able to maintain plugins outside of the Xend tree > which would require a stable plugin interface. I don't think we're at a > point where we can do that. No, you are missing an important point. The plugin mechanism is necessary to isolate specialized device migration code from general-purpose migration code. I don't think it has anything to do with where the plugins are maintained. > This all sounds like it's going to add complexity. The tools are > already far too complex. I think the complexity is already there in the usage scenarios. So this is not adding complexity. Rather it is dealing with complexity that exists. Right now the tools ignore most of the complex scenarios. Mike