On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 10:55:14AM -0800, Ram Pai wrote: > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 09:06:29AM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 10:55:11 -0800 > > Ram Pai <linuxram@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 09:19:43AM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > > Actually the two options are inherently NOT incompatible. Halil also > > > mentioned this in one of his replies. > > > > > > Its just that the current implementation is lacking, which will be fixed > > > in the near future. > > > > > > We can design it upfront, with the assumption that they both are compatible. > > > In the short term disable one; preferrably the secure-object, if both > > > options are specified. In the long term, remove the restriction, when > > > the implemetation is complete. > > > > Can't we simply mark the object as non-migratable now, and then remove > > that later? I don't see what is so special about it. > > This is fine too. > > However I am told that libvirt has some assumptions, where it assumes > that the VM is guaranteed to be migratable if '--only-migratable' is > specified. Silently turning off that option can be bad. TO be clear libvirt does *not* currently use --only-migratable. What you're describing here is QEMU's own definition of this flag $ qemu-system-x86_64 | grep migratable -only-migratable allow only migratable devices Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
