From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call agenda for Tuesday 28th Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 15:47:23 +0100 Message-ID: <4F4CE8FB.8080404@redhat.com> References: <87r4xg1n5g.fsf@elfo.elfo> <4F4BBBA8.3020105@redhat.com> <4F4BFC9A.1020300@redhat.com> <4F4BFE4D.8000409@codemonkey.ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Anthony Liguori , Eric Blake , quintela@trasno.org, KVM devel mailing list , Developers qemu-devel To: Stefan Hajnoczi Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:35571 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964840Ab2B1Orj (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Feb 2012 09:47:39 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Il 28/02/2012 15:39, Stefan Hajnoczi ha scritto: > I'm not a fan of transactions or freeze/thaw (if used to atomically > perform other commands). > > We should not export low-level block device operations so that > external software can micromanage via QMP. I don't think this is a > good idea because it takes the block device offline and possibly > blocks the VM. We're reaching a level comparable to an HTTP interface > for acquiring pthread mutex, doing some operations, and then another > HTTP request to unlock it. This is micromanagement it will create > more problems because we will have to support lots of little API > functions. So you're for extending Jeff's patches to group mirroring etc.? That's also my favorite one, assuming we can do it in time for 1.1. Paolo