From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:43195) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SvwTu-0003eU-Ra for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:22:24 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SvwTt-0004l1-C2 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:22:22 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:64680) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SvwTt-0004km-3h for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:22:21 -0400 From: Juan Quintela In-Reply-To: <87zk6h3vy4.fsf@trasno.org> (Juan Quintela's message of "Mon, 30 Jul 2012 21:12:03 +0200") References: <1343554983-4195-1-git-send-email-owasserm@redhat.com> <1343554983-4195-3-git-send-email-owasserm@redhat.com> <87zk6h3vy4.fsf@trasno.org> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 22:21:29 +0200 Message-ID: <87lii13sqe.fsf@trasno.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 02/11] Add migrate_set_parameter and query-migrate-parameters Reply-To: quintela@redhat.com List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Orit Wasserman Cc: peter.maydell@linaro.org, aliguori@us.ibm.com, stefanha@gmail.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com, blauwirbel@gmail.com, chegu_vinod@hp.com, avi@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, lcapitulino@redhat.com, eblake@redhat.com Juan Quintela wrote: > Orit Wasserman wrote: >> The management can enable/disable a capability for the next migration by using >> migrate_set_parameter command. >> The management can query the current migration capabilities using >> query-migrate-parameters >> >> Signed-off-by: Orit Wasserman >> Signed-off-by: Juan Quintela > > I just noticed .... shouldn't we use > > migrate_set_parameter cache_size 256M > ??? > > I think that even the old migration parameters could be added to this > one? > > migrate_set_parameter downtime 30ms > migrate_set_parameter bandwidth 1G /me nacks myself. It appears that I am the only one that thinks that command explosion is bad O;-) (and yes, it is a different compromise.) > > This way everything would be more regular, and easier on libvirt, as new > parameters would be trivial to ask for? > > Notice that I can understand that we have to maintain the old commands > for compability, but we can do "regularly" for new ones? > > Later, Juan.