[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/21] Kemari for KVM 0.2
From: |
Yoshiaki Tamura |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/21] Kemari for KVM 0.2 |
Date: |
Mon, 29 Nov 2010 23:37:50 +0900 |
2010/11/29 Paul Brook <address@hidden>:
>> >> To answer Stefan's question, there shouldn't be any requirement
>> >> for a device, but must be tested with Kemari. If it doesn't work
>> >> correctly, the problems must be fixed before adding to the list.
>> >
>> > What exactly are the problems? Is this a device bus of a Kemari bug?
>> > If it's the former then that implies you're imposing additional
>> > requirements that weren't previously part of the API. If the latter,
>> > then it's a bug like any other.
>>
>> It's a problem if devices don't continue correctly upon failover.
>> I would say it's a bug of live migration (not all of course)
>> because Kemari is just live migrating at specific points.
>
> Ah, now we're getting somewhere. So you're saying that these devices are
> broken anyway, and Kemari happens to trigger that brokenness more frequently?
>
> If the requirement is that a device must support live migration, then that
> should be the criteria for enabling Kemari, not some arbitrary whitelist.
Sorry, I though that criteria to be obvious one and didn't think
to clarify. The whitelist is a guard not to let users get into
trouble with arbitrary devices.
> If devices incorrectly claim support for live migration, then that should also
> be fixed, either by removing the broken code or by making it work.
I totally agree with you.
> AFAICT your current proposal is just feeding back the results of some fairly
> specific QA testing. I'd rather not get into that game. The correct response
> in the context of upstream development is to file a bug and/or fix the code.
> We already have config files that allow third party packagers to remove
> devices they don't want to support.
Sorry, I didn't get what you're trying to tell me. My plan would
be to initially start from a subset of devices, and gradually
grow the number of devices that Kemari works with. While this
process, it'll include what you said above, file a but and/or fix
the code. Am I missing what you're saying?
Yoshi
>
> Paul
>
>
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/21] Kemari for KVM 0.2, (continued)
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/21] Kemari for KVM 0.2, Stefan Hajnoczi, 2010/11/27
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/21] Kemari for KVM 0.2, Yoshiaki Tamura, 2010/11/27
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/21] Kemari for KVM 0.2, Stefan Hajnoczi, 2010/11/29
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/21] Kemari for KVM 0.2, Paul Brook, 2010/11/29
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/21] Kemari for KVM 0.2, Yoshiaki Tamura, 2010/11/29
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/21] Kemari for KVM 0.2, Paul Brook, 2010/11/29
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/21] Kemari for KVM 0.2, Yoshiaki Tamura, 2010/11/29
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/21] Kemari for KVM 0.2, Paul Brook, 2010/11/29
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/21] Kemari for KVM 0.2,
Yoshiaki Tamura <=
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/21] Kemari for KVM 0.2, Paul Brook, 2010/11/29
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/21] Kemari for KVM 0.2, Yoshiaki Tamura, 2010/11/29
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/21] Kemari for KVM 0.2, Paul Brook, 2010/11/29
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/21] Kemari for KVM 0.2, Stefan Hajnoczi, 2010/11/29
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/21] Kemari for KVM 0.2, Dor Laor, 2010/11/29
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/21] Kemari for KVM 0.2, Paul Brook, 2010/11/29
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/21] Kemari for KVM 0.2, Anthony Liguori, 2010/11/29
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/21] Kemari for KVM 0.2, Paul Brook, 2010/11/29
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/21] Kemari for KVM 0.2, Anthony Liguori, 2010/11/29
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/21] Kemari for KVM 0.2, Paul Brook, 2010/11/27