On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 13:14:48 -0500, Eric Blake wrote: > On 3/26/19 12:41 PM, Peter Krempa wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 01:13:44 -0500, Eric Blake wrote: > >> I'm fairly confident that these API are ready to go (that is, I've got > >> qemu code in the wings to implement these API for the qemu driver, as > >> demonstrated at last KVM forum, and it shouldn't be too hard to add > >> support in the test driver to get some 'make check' coverage similar > >> to what I recently added for snapshots). I'm hoping the APIs make it > >> in for 5.2, even if I'm still dealing with review churn on the later > >> parts of my v5 series (there has been a lot of rebasing from earlier > >> review comments, so v5 is currently still the most recent version that > >> I was able to run demos with, although I hope to post the rest of v6 > >> soon). > > > > I'm still not persuaded that pushing any API without implementation is a > > good idea. (No, test driver implementation does not count). If the > > consensus of others is that it's good to go then go ahead, but I want to > > voice this concern here. > > I do have the qemu implementation for checkpoints fully tested, as well > as working for pull mode backups (the push mode backups is still demo > quality, but as of v5, I was able to get a push mode backup started even > if the events weren't wired up correctly). That is okay. If there is a working subset with a real driver I don't object. I just don't see any value in pushing API without a real implementation from upstream point of view.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
