From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=51056 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OPJ2L-0000W2-EW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:37:58 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OPJ2J-0004z0-Qe for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:37:57 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:45223) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OPJ2J-0004yk-E7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:37:55 -0400 From: Juan Quintela In-Reply-To: <20100617112307.53482385@redhat.com> (Luiz Capitulino's message of "Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:23:07 -0300") References: <20100609175215.2e2071a0@redhat.com> <20100611113022.27490bfe@redhat.com> <4C1636BC.704@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4C165482.6020601@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4C167DE4.8080104@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4C168A81.8060302@codemonkey.ws> <20100615104047.260b7276@redhat.com> <20100616150155.49acbc50@redhat.com> <20100617112307.53482385@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 18:34:00 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] Add QMP migration events List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Luiz Capitulino Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Luiz Capitulino wrote: > On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 21:10:04 +0200 > Juan Quintela wrote: > >> Luiz Capitulino wrote: >> > On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 17:24:59 +0200 >> > Juan Quintela wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> > I still don't see the need for MIGRATION_STARTED, it could be useful in >> >> > the target but I'd like to understand the use case in more detail. >> >> >> >> At this point, if you are doing migration with tcp, and you are putting >> >> the wrong port on source (no path or any other error), you get no info >> >> at all of what is happening. >> > >> > Shouldn't the migrate command just the return the expected error? >> >> No. Think you are "having troubles". You try to find what happens. >> launch things by hand. And there is no way to know if anybody has >> conected to the destination machine. Some notification that migration >> has started is _very_ useful. expecially when there are >> networks/firewalls/... in the middle. > > [...] > >> That is it. But you continue telling that going to the old house and >> doing a info migrate is a good interface. > > I'm sorry? When did I ever claimed such a thing? polling is enough. polling has to be done in source machine. > First point: all you describe is MIGRATION_CONNECTED, at the end of the day > it would do exactly what you want for MIGRATION_STARTED. > > The second, and most important point, is that we're trying not to make > things worse. Adding a number of events to circumvent a bad designed > command and having the wrong expectations (ie. help developer debugging) > is a clear recipe for disaster. > > Anyway, I think it doesn't matter anymore, as QMP is not going to be declared > stable for 0.13. In this case we'll have enough time to design the proper > interface. > >> To add insult to injury, the problem is that libvirt people are not >> collaborative, and expect things that can't be done, are uncooperative, > > Again, I've never claimed that and I think you're taking this thread to > the wrong direction. Ok, I stop then. Later, Juan.