From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MJ4aI-0007nx-Cc for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:54:42 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MJ4aD-0007nX-K1 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:54:41 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=55358 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MJ4aC-0007nQ-N0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:54:37 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:44430) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MJ4aC-0002Fs-8U for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:54:36 -0400 Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:54:33 +0100 From: "Daniel P. Berrange" Message-ID: <20090623115432.GK6881@redhat.com> References: <20090623013005.39e27923@doriath> <4A409A4D.8030605@siemens.com> <20090623100428.GD6881@redhat.com> <4A40AA3D.2050807@siemens.com> <4A40AB9D.6040204@redhat.com> <4A40B467.7000604@siemens.com> <4A40BC66.8040206@redhat.com> <4A40C01C.2070004@siemens.com> <4A40C1B6.8080103@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A40C1B6.8080103@redhat.com> Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 11/11] QMP: Command-line flag to enable control mode Reply-To: "Daniel P. Berrange" List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Avi Kivity Cc: aliguori@us.ibm.com, ehabkost@redhat.com, Jan Kiszka , dlaor@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Luiz Capitulino On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:51:18PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 06/23/2009 02:44 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >>If libvirt "doesn't bother" about something useful, that's a libvirt > >>bug. It's wierd to have something controlled by two parallel management > >>channels. > >> > > > >I think the libvirt policy is that things which are not generic enough > >to be supported by>1 hypervisor are left alone. > > > > That's a bit offtopic here, but it appears to me this dooms libvirt to > be useless in all but the most basic use cases. Hypervisor writers try > to new features to differentiate their products, and forcing users off > libvirt in order to use them seems to be counterproductive. libvirt is *not* restricted to 'lowest common denominator'. We are fine with supporting features that are only supported in 1 hypervisor. Our goal is to specify a generic representation of the feature, rather than directly exposing the underlying syntax of the HV. Daniel -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|