Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/21] Kemari for KVM 0.2

[Dor Laor]

On 11/29/2010 06:23 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Yoshiaki Tamura
> <address@hidden>  wrote:
> > 2010/11/29 Paul Brook<address@hidden>:
> > > > > 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?
> > >
> > > My point is that the whitelist shouldn't exist at all.  Devices either support
> > > migration or they don't.  Having some sort of separate whitelist is the wrong
> > > way to determine which devices support migration.
> >
> > Alright!
> >
> > Then if a user encounters a problem with Kemari, we'll fix Kemari
> > or the devices or both. Correct?
>
> Is this a fair summary: any device that supports live migration workw
> under Kemari?

It might be fair summary but practically we barely have live migration 
working w/o Kemari. In addition, last I checked Kemari needs additional 
hooks and it will be too hard to keep that out of tree until all devices 
get it.

> (If such a device does not work under Kemari then this is a bug that
> needs to be fixed in live migration, Kemari, or the device.)
>
> Stefan