Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/21] Kemari for KVM 0.2

[Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>]

On 11/29/2010 10:53 AM, Paul Brook wrote:
>>> Is this a fair summary: any device that supports live migration workw
>>> under Kemari?
>>>        
>> It might be fair summary but practically we barely have live migration
>> working w/o Kemari. In addition, last I checked Kemari needs additional
>> hooks and it will be too hard to keep that out of tree until all devices
>> get it.
>>      
> That's not what I've been hearing earlier in this thread.
> The responses from Yoshi indicate that Stefan's summary is correct.  i.e. the
> current Kemari implementation may require per-device hooks, but that's a bug
> and should be fixed before merging.
>    

It's actually really important that Kemari make use of an intermediate 
layer such that the hooks can distinguish between a device access and a 
recursive access.

You could s/bdrv_aio_multiwrite/bdrv_aio_multiwrite_internal/g and then 
within kemari, s/bdrv_aio_multiwrite_proxy/bdrv_aio_multiwrite/ but I 
don't think that results in a cleaner interface.

I don't like the _proxy naming and I think it has led to some 
confusion.  I think having a dev_aio_multiwrite interface is a better 
naming scheme and ultimately provides a clearer idea of why a separate 
interface is needed--to distinguish between device accesses and internal 
accesses.

BTW, dev_aio_multiwrite should take a DeviceState * and a BlockDriverState.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

> Paul
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>