From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=48073 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1P8Jad-0006IC-Up
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 17:19:24 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1P8Jab-0003XR-KW
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 17:19:23 -0400
Received: from mail-qw0-f45.google.com ([209.85.216.45]:38378)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1P8Jab-0003XC-H2
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 17:19:21 -0400
Received: by qwh5 with SMTP id 5so1750677qwh.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 14:19:20 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4CBE0B55.6020208@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:19:17 -0500
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: KVM call agenda for Oct 19
References: <1642827860.79861287521845369.JavaMail.root@zmail07.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <1642827860.79861287521845369.JavaMail.root@zmail07.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; 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.nongnu.org/archive/html/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: Ayal Baron <abaron@redhat.com>
Cc: chrisw@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>, dlaor@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org>, "Venkateswararao Jujjuri (JV)" <jvrao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

On 10/19/2010 03:57 PM, Ayal Baron wrote:
>> Yeah, concurrent is a little trickier.  Simple solution is for a
>> management tool to just do a stop + multiple snapshots + cont.  It's
>> equivalent to what we'd do if we don't do it aio which is probably how
>>
>> we'd do the first implementation.
>>
>> But in the long term, I think the most elegant solution would be to
>> expose the freeze api via QMP and let a management tool freeze
>> multiple
>> devices, then start taking snapshots, then unfreeze them when all
>> snapshots are complete.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Anthony Liguori
>>      
> qemu should call the freeze as part of the process (for all of the relevant devices) then take the snapshots then thaw.
>    

Yeah, I'm not opposed to us providing simpler interfaces in addition to 
or in lieu of lower level interfaces.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori