Hello, Eric & Daniel 在 2012-09-05三的 11:08 -0600，Eric Blake写道： > 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... yes, my original thought was to do all things together. > > >>> > >>> 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? > so, libvirt may prefer APIs do one thing only? maybe I have to just migrate the definition. -- liguang lig.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx FNST linux kernel team -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list