On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 10:53:57AM -0500, Daniel Veillard wrote:
>
> Okay I can see how this would be useful, the questions I would have would be:
> - how generic is this, i.e. suppose a different hypervisor back-end
> would this still make sense. I guess yes, for example with an UML
> back-end we could check the process status and force a dump with a
> signal and move the core to the given file not trivial but same semantic
> would be doable.
Is there any policy what should be included in the library? I think
we will see many virtualization projects and an intersection between
all projects could be very small. From my point of view include to
the library something less generic is not big problem if we provide
API with a "non-implemented" (ENOSYS) return codes.
Karel
--
Karel Zak <kzak@xxxxxxxxxx>