Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: KVM call agenda for July 27

[Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>]

  On 07/27/2010 08:01 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>
>> It's annoying to us old hands, but it does give that nice integrated
>> system feel that we're missing, and it works even if virt-manager is in
>> the background (or if you don't use virt-manager at all).
>>
>> Given that there's a kerneloops pluging that presumably does similar
>> parsing, I don't think it's too hard:
>>
>> $ size /usr/lib64/abrt/libKerneloopsScanner.so
>>     text       data        bss        dec        hex    filename
>>    18293       1416         16      19725       4d0d
>> /usr/lib64/abrt/libKerneloopsScanner.so
> One issue though - a kernel oopps is a clear bug. A failure to start
> QEMU is often just a mis-configuration, not a bug. We don't want to spa
> developers with ABRT reports everytime a user misconfigures a guest.

Shouldn't libvirt/virt-manager know that the configuration will fail 
beforehand?

Well, I guess for things like broken paths or bad permissions, no.

So we should clearly differentiate between qemu reporting its own bugs 
(a warn() function) and qemu reporting user errors.  In fact that's what 
the kernel does, ordinary printk()s aren't reported, just bugs.

-- 
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.