From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=58603 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OPFzv-0005WU-MH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 10:23:16 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OPFzu-00066R-As for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 10:23:15 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:62436) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OPFzu-00066G-4K for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 10:23:14 -0400 Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:23:07 -0300 From: Luiz Capitulino Message-ID: <20100617112307.53482385@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: Juan Quintela Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org 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? 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. > .... > > Libvirt folks "also" do lots of things wrong, they are not perfect. But > it in this case, who is being completely unreasonable is qemu land. > > Later, Juan. >