Hello, Eric & Daniel
在 2012-09-05三的 11:08 -0600,Eric Blake写道:
On 09/05/2012 02:48 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>>
>>> I really don't like the general design of this patch, even
>>> ignoring all the code bugs. I think this entire patch is
>>> really just a solution in search of a problem. Offline migration
>>> is already possible with existing libvirt APIs:
I agree that the existing patches are making too many assumptions and
not honoring flags correctly; but I'm still not sure why the user must
decompose offline migration into a sequence of calls...
yes, my original thought was to do all things together.
>>>
>>> domsrc = virDomainLookupByName(connsrc, "someguest");
>>> xml = virDomainGetXMLDesc(domsrc);
>>> domdst virDomainDefine(conndst, xml);
>>>
>>
>> Um, maybe you mean offline migration is just redefinition of domain at
>> target side, but what about disk images the domain used without sharing
>> files between source and target, do we have to take a look at this case?
>
> Which can also be done already
>
> virStorageVolDownload + virStorageVolUpload
...when a single virMigrate API could do the same decomposition as
syntactic sugar, if the patch were cleaned up to actually obey flags.
That is, why must virMigrate be a live-only operation, forcing
virt-manager and all other wrappers to re-implement the same giant
sequence of API calls for offline migration?
so, libvirt may prefer APIs do one thing only?
maybe I have to just migrate the definition.
--
liguang lig.fnst(a)cn.fujitsu.com
FNST linux kernel team