From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1O6Os4-0004o7-6j
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 10:01:12 -0400
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=35316 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1O6Os2-0004nG-OV
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 10:01:11 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1O6Orz-0005JG-Pl
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 10:01:10 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:65408)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1O6Ory-0005Ip-UR
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 10:01:07 -0400
Message-ID: <4BD59C9E.2000506@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 17:01:02 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [libvirt] Libvirt debug API
References: <4BD1971B.7060907@redhat.com>
	<4BD1A543.1050004@codemonkey.ws>	<4BD1ADA2.2050605@redhat.com>
	<4BD1E723.6070005@codemonkey.ws>	<4BD2BDE0.7020907@redhat.com>
	<4BD3B965.3060205@codemonkey.ws>	<4BD42CDB.2030901@redhat.com>
	<4BD4F20D.8030901@codemonkey.ws>	<20100426095949.GA1342@redhat.com>
	<4BD5915F.3060405@codemonkey.ws>	<20100426133120.GD1342@redhat.com>
	<4BD59874.2000207@codemonkey.ws>
In-Reply-To: <4BD59874.2000207@codemonkey.ws>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: "libvir-list@redhat.com" <libvir-list@redhat.com>, qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>, Chris Lalancette <clalance@redhat.com>, Jiri Denemark <jdenemar@redhat.com>

On 04/26/2010 04:43 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> The reason I lean toward the direct launch model is that it gives the 
> user a lot of flexibility in terms of using things like namespaces, 
> DAC, cgroups, capabilities, etc.  A lot of potential features are lost 
> when you do indirect launch because you have to teach the daemon how 
> to support each of these features.

But what's the alternative?  Teach the user how to do all these things?

It's infinitely flexible, but it's not an API you can give to a 
management tool developer.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function