From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MVZJL-0003ns-R1
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:08:51 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MVZJG-0003ng-DR
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:08:50 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=34947 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MVZJG-0003nd-7M
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:08:46 -0400
Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:63262)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <glommer@redhat.com>) id 1MVZJF-0007wY-LT
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:08:45 -0400
Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31])
	by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <glommer@redhat.com>) id 1MVZJE-0004Dj-P9
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:08:45 -0400
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 20:15:41 -0300
From: Glauber Costa <glommer@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20090727231541.GP4776@poweredge.glommer>
References: <20090727201855.GK4776@poweredge.glommer>
	<1248729471-5403-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
	<20090727212923.GO4776@poweredge.glommer>
	<4A6E1DF5.7090704@us.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4A6E1DF5.7090704@us.ibm.com>
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH alternative] fix migration to obey -S
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 04:36:53PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Glauber Costa wrote:
>> Hummm,, those are a little bit weird. I'd expect it to be a characteristic of the
>> source machine, no the destination. IOW, if the machine was running prior to migration,
>> it should be running after it, and if it was stopped prior to migration, it should be
>> stopped after it.
>>   
>
> Whether a guest is running is not part of it's state-IOW, it's not  
> visible to the guest whether it's running or not.
Can't we then register a savevm function for that?
Otherwise, management gets quite complicated, if they really want to get the behaviour
I described (which I believe to be the most reasonable one)