在 2012-11-06二的 09:00 -0700，Eric Blake写道： > On 11/06/2012 04:16 AM, Jiri Denemark wrote: > > > > Another thing I didn't notice last time :-( Is there any reason why offline > > migrating a running domain should be forbidden? But even if there was a > > reason, this check doesn't belong to virsh. > > Good observation. I think that supporting --offline migration for a > running domain DOES make sense - migrate the persistent state only, so > that on the destination, the domain is now defined but not running, and > the running state continues on the source. There's no problem with > having a persistent definition on more than one machine (unlike with > running migration, where we must ensure that the domain is on only one > host at a time with smooth handoff between hosts). > IMHO: I don't like to act as a smuggler for active domain, offline is offline, online is online, you should not do any real job for online when you're doing job for offline, of course, it's pretty semantic, so, I reject this case at virsh instead of migration process. If you need sugar from offline action, I think at least an explicit flag is required to let offline do it for you. -- liguang lig.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx FNST linux kernel team -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list