On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 08:33:09PM +0800, Daniel Veillard wrote: > On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 12:28:45PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > There are various configurations for virtual domains that we allow, > > but do not wish to actively support in production environments. > > The support situation is similar to that of binary only or non-GPL > > kernel modules, so borrow the kernel's idea of "tainting". > > > > When an undesirable configuration is used on a running VM, set a > > suitable taint flag and log a warning. OS distro bug triagers can > > see these warnings and decide whether to support users filing bugs > > in this scenarios > > Looks fine, but post 0.9.1 obviously. > Patch 1 and 2 no problem. For patch 3 I wonder if it's a good idea to > open the logs if we don't have to report a taint violation, which I > would assume is not frequent. > In general the idea of making easier to append a log string to the domain > log file could be used in various places (though I remember arguments > that since it's given to the QEmu process libvirtd should avoid touch > it, on the other hand that's the best place to report per domain > incidents), maybe we could just have a Snprintf like function to append > to it and then only use it if we detect a tainted problem to report. > > Could be done as refinement on top of patch 3, I re-wrote patch 3 completely to work along these lines and posted a new series. Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list