Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 01/20/2010 07:18 PM, john cooper wrote: >> I can appreciate the concern of wanting to get this >> as "correct" as possible. >> > > This is the root of the trouble. At the qemu layer, we try to focus on > being correct. > > Management tools are typically the layer that deals with being "correct". > > A good compromise is making things user tunable which means that a > downstream can make "correctness" decisions without forcing those > decisions on upstream. Conceptually I agree with such a malleable approach -- actually I prefer it. I thought however it was too much infrastructure to foist on the problem just to add a few more models into the mix. The only reservation which comes to mind is that of logistics. This may ruffle the code some and impact others such as Andre who seem to have existing patches relative to the current structure. Anyone have strong objections to this approach before I have a look at an implementation? Thanks, -john -- john.cooper@xxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
