On 03.05.2016 08:14, Peter Krempa wrote: > On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 18:35:35 +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote: >> On 02.05.2016 16:36, Peter Krempa wrote: >>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 18:43:10 +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote: >>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1139766 > > [...] > >>> Any failure in qemuProcessReconnect results into libvirtd killing the >>> process. I don't think this failure is criticall enough to allow such >>> brutality. >>> >>> Peter >>> >> >> Well, if guest has updated its RTC while we were not running, we would >> report spurious time in our XML. Since we are doing something similar >> for ejectable disks, i.e. CDROMs too, I presumed it is okay. But I don't >> mind changing this to something softer. > > As long as it's guaranteed that any target qemu supported by libvirt > does support the interrogation you are going to do it's probably fine. > > The problem with your patch is that qom-get was added in qemu 1.1 > whereas libvirt supports versions since 0.12 > > This would effectively reduce compatibility to 1.1 which we should not > do as a side effect of a unrelated change. Okay, so if I make that check less drastic, do I have your ACK or do you want me to send v2? Michal -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list