On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 01:17:44PM -0400, Laine Stump wrote:
On 04/09/2012 11:52 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> The new block copy storage migration sequence requires both the
> 'drive-mirror' action in 'transaction' (present if the
'drive-mirror'
> standalone monitor command also exists) and the 'drive-reopen' monitor
> command (it would be nice if that were also part of a 'transaction',
> but the initial qemu implementation has it standalone only).
>
> Furthermore, qemu 1.1 will be adding 'block_job_cancel' as an
> asynchronous command, but an earlier implementation (that supported
> only the qed file format) existed which was synchronous only. If
> 'drive-mirror' is added in time, then we can safely use
'drive-mirror'
> as the witness of whether 'block_job_cancel' is synchronous or
> asynchronous.
>
> As of this[1] qemu email, both commands have been proposed but not yet
> incorporated into the tree; in fact, the implementation I tested with
> has changed to match this[2] email that suggested a mandatory
> 'full':'bool' argument rather than
'mode':'no-backing-file'. So there
> is a risk that qemu 1.1 will have yet another subtly different
> implementation.
> [
1]https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2012-03/msg01524.html
> [
2]https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2012-04/msg00886.html
None of this gives me warm fuzzies :-/
Based on previous experience, my suggestion is that we do *not* merge
any of this new libvirt API work, until the QEMU stuff has actually
been accepted into their git master. The previous block streaming
stuff is a nice history lesson in what happens when we merge stuff
in libvirt before QEMU has agreed their final design :-(
Daniel
--
|:
http://berrange.com -o-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|:
http://libvirt.org -o-
http://virt-manager.org :|
|:
http://autobuild.org -o-
http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|:
http://entangle-photo.org -o-
http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|