From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754703Ab0CWKOK (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Mar 2010 06:14:10 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:30484 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754552Ab0CWKOH (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Mar 2010 06:14:07 -0400 Message-ID: <4BA89430.7060404@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:13:04 +0100 From: Kevin Wolf User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100120 Fedora/3.0.1-1.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anthony Liguori CC: Avi Kivity , Ingo Molnar , Pekka Enberg , "Zhang, Yanmin" , Peter Zijlstra , Sheng Yang , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Marcelo Tosatti , oerg Roedel , Jes Sorensen , Gleb Natapov , Zachary Amsden , ziteng.huang@intel.com, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Fr?d?ric Weisbecker , Gregory Haskins Subject: Re: [RFC] Unify KVM kernel-space and user-space code into a single project References: <20100322124428.GA12475@elte.hu> <4BA76810.4040609@redhat.com> <20100322143212.GE14201@elte.hu> <4BA7821C.7090900@codemonkey.ws> <20100322155505.GA18796@elte.hu> <4BA796DF.7090005@redhat.com> <20100322165107.GD18796@elte.hu> <4BA7A406.9050203@redhat.com> <20100322173400.GB15795@elte.hu> <4BA7B9E0.5080009@codemonkey.ws> <20100322192739.GE21919@elte.hu> <4BA7C96D.2020702@redhat.com> <4BA7E9D9.5060800@codemonkey.ws> In-Reply-To: <4BA7E9D9.5060800@codemonkey.ws> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Am 22.03.2010 23:06, schrieb Anthony Liguori: > On 03/22/2010 02:47 PM, Avi Kivity wrote: >> Having qemu enumerate guests one way or another is not a good idea IMO >> since it is focused on one guest and doesn't have a system-wide entity. > > There always needs to be a system wide entity. There are two ways to > enumerate instances from that system wide entity. You can centralize > the creation of instances and there by maintain an list of current > instances. You can also allow instances to be created in a > decentralized manner and provide a standard mechanism for instances to > register themselves with the system wide entity. > > IOW, it's the difference between asking libvirtd to exec(qemu) vs > allowing a user to exec(qemu) and having qemu connect to a well known > unix domain socket for libvirt to tell libvirtd that it exists. I think the latter is exactly what I would want for myself. I do see the advantages of having a central instance, but I really don't want to bother with libvirt configuration files or even GUIs just to get an ad-hoc VM up when I can simply run "qemu -hda hd.img -m 1024". Let alone that I usually want to have full control over qemu, including monitor access and small details available as command line options. I know that I'm not the average user with these requirements, but still I am one user and do have these requirements. If I could just install libvirt, continue using qemu as I always did and libvirt picked my VMs up for things like global enumeration, that would be more or less the optimal thing for me. Kevin