From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=57877 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PujBY-0000bt-JC
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Mar 2011 05:21:37 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>) id 1PujBX-0007lS-J1
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Mar 2011 05:21:36 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:13149)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>) id 1PujBX-0007lD-6M
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Mar 2011 05:21:35 -0500
Message-ID: <4D6E1A25.3070501@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 11:21:25 +0100
From: Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] QEMU: Discussion of separating core functionality
	vs	supportive features
References: <4D6BD085.8000001@redhat.com>
	<AANLkTik-9oDv2UyRzVQQtKNumJnVT9pp_0U_5z+A9PSv@mail.gmail.com>
	<4D6CE170.6060108@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D6CE170.6060108@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
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: dlaor@redhat.com
Cc: Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>, Michael Roth <mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, Anthony Liguori <aliguori@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>, Adam Litke <agl@us.ibm.com>, Amit Shah <amit.shah@redhat.com>

On 03/01/11 13:07, Dor Laor wrote:
> On 02/28/2011 07:44 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> I'm very nervous about having a large number of daemons necessary to run
>> QEMU.  I think a reasonable approach would be a single front-end daemond.
> 
> s/daemon/son processes/
> Qemu is the one that should spawn them and they should be transparent
> from the management. This way running qemu stays the same and qemu just
> need to add the logic to get a SIGCHILD and potentially re-execute an
> dead son process.

I disagree here, I do not want to require QEMU to spawn the new
processes. Having a daemon you can use to connect will provide more
flexibility and isn't unreasonably complex.

Cheers,
Jes