From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MGD6T-0000UC-CN for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 15 Jun 2009 10:24:05 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MGD6O-0000R6-9k for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 15 Jun 2009 10:24:04 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=60974 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MGD6N-0000Qp-Uz for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 15 Jun 2009 10:24:00 -0400 Received: from mail-ew0-f224.google.com ([209.85.219.224]:54099) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MGD6N-0004le-2e for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 15 Jun 2009 10:23:59 -0400 Received: by ewy24 with SMTP id 24so1102044ewy.34 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 2009 07:23:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4A3633FD.4010208@redhat.com> References: <20090610150129.GC28601@redhat.com> <4A326B5C.5010501@codemonkey.ws> <1244821292.30522.56.camel@blaa> <4A327E4A.7010300@codemonkey.ws> <1244825303.26769.19.camel@blaa> <20090614095016.GA7560@redhat.com> <1245056916.6891.31.camel@blaa> <4A3613EC.6030608@redhat.com> <87ocsp687t.fsf@pike.pond.sub.org> <4A3633FD.4010208@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 09:23:44 -0500 Message-ID: <90eb1dc70906150723h4e0e9aa2h253c8411771b6e7e@mail.gmail.com> From: Javier Guerra Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: Configuration vs. compat hints List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Avi Kivity Cc: Mark McLoughlin , kvm@vger.kernel.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" , qemu-devel , Glauber Costa , Rusty Russell , Markus Armbruster , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Blue Swirl , Christian Borntraeger , Paul Brook , Carsten Otte On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 6:43 AM, Avi Kivity wrote: > (I'd be quite happy constructing the entire machine config on the command > line, but I realize it's just me) as a user-only (well, i'm a developer, but don't meddle in kernel affairs since 0.99pl9); I also like that kvm is totally CLI-managed. but migration-wise, i think it could be nicer if the 'origin' process could send the config to the 'target' one. IOW: the -incoming flag shouldn't need any other parameter, and the 'migrate' command should send the whole hardware description before the CPU state, and fail with a 'can't comply' message if the target complains. of course, that's a simplification. for example, the 'target' process should be able to respect some parameters, mostly the 'external' descriptions, like storage pathnames, or '-net tap' ones. -- Javier