From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stefano Stabellini Subject: Re: save image file format? and [RFC] tmem save/restore/migrate Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:54:58 +0100 Message-ID: <4A3A3922.7000005@eu.citrix.com> References: <20090618085158.GE16056@york.uk.xensource.com> <20090618113924.GB17990@movementarian.org> <4A3A2CE1.2010100@eu.citrix.com> <20090618120558.GJ16056@york.uk.xensource.com> <20090618122620.GA17461@movementarian.org> <20090618124305.GK16056@york.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090618124305.GK16056@york.uk.xensource.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: Tim Deegan Cc: Dan Magenheimer , "Xen-Devel (E-mail)" , Gianluca Guida , John Levon List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Tim Deegan wrote: > At 13:26 +0100 on 18 Jun (1245331580), John Levon wrote: >>> just layering for its own sake. (Also, using qemu to save a PV guests >>> would be pretty wierd). >> Why? We already use qemu for PV guests and that's only going to become >> more common. > > Is it? AIUI the only thing we use qemu for in PV guests is the pvfb > backend, which is just because nobody's put in a proper library > interface to that code. We also use it for the console backend when a vfb is given to the guest. >>>> The qemu people are also maintaing save record compatibility now, so we >>>> are safe from that perspective. >>> Yes, but their code-defines-format model is rubbish. >> Maybe now is the time to help them fix that? It's really no worse than >> Xen's code-defines-format model, headers or not. > > Qemu's code-defines-format model is actually much better than the > xend/libxc code-defines-format model. :) But that's not to say it's the > thing we should be copying. It is more about reusing than copying.