On 09/05/2012 02:48 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: >>> >>> I really don't like the general design of this patch, even >>> ignoring all the code bugs. I think this entire patch is >>> really just a solution in search of a problem. Offline migration >>> is already possible with existing libvirt APIs: I agree that the existing patches are making too many assumptions and not honoring flags correctly; but I'm still not sure why the user must decompose offline migration into a sequence of calls... >>> >>> domsrc = virDomainLookupByName(connsrc, "someguest"); >>> xml = virDomainGetXMLDesc(domsrc); >>> domdst virDomainDefine(conndst, xml); >>> >> >> Um, maybe you mean offline migration is just redefinition of domain at >> target side, but what about disk images the domain used without sharing >> files between source and target, do we have to take a look at this case? > > Which can also be done already > > virStorageVolDownload + virStorageVolUpload ...when a single virMigrate API could do the same decomposition as syntactic sugar, if the patch were cleaned up to actually obey flags. That is, why must virMigrate be a live-only operation, forcing virt-manager and all other wrappers to re-implement the same giant sequence of API calls for offline migration? -- Eric Blake eblake@xxxxxxxxxx +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list