|
From: | Paolo Bonzini |
Subject: | Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 01/10] qapi: add Visitor interfaces for uint*_t and int*_t |
Date: | Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:35:29 +0100 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110930 Thunderbird/7.0.1 |
On 12/20/2011 09:56 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
As always, you can implement that in many ways. However, I think the point of using Visitors is not to remove QEMUFile.Yes, it is.
The point of using Visitors is to provide a standard representation of device state. QEMUFile is but one consumer of that representation, along with any other migration filter.
We need something like a migration filter capability where we can encapsulate this kind of logic such that we can ween VMState away from these things (and ultimately switch to an IDL compiler). We can't do a migration filter until we have something like Michael's series.
Agreed. I'm saying that the QEMUFile serialization should be the first example of a migration filter. Mike's patch add a layer of indirection in the code, but not in the data. We can't do a migration filter until we have device state represented as introspectable data.
Yes, this is accurate, but I see the goals differently. We should: (1) First and foremost, provide a backend-independent representation of device state so that we can add other backends later.And Mike's series does this, no?
No.
(2) Serialize this with QEMUFile, both for backwards-compatibility and to ensure that the whole thing works.Mike's series also does this, no?
It serializes device state directly, without going through a backend-independent representation. It doesn't provide a place in which you can plug a filter.
Paolo
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |