2011/1/28 Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>: > On 01/28/2011 02:53 PM, Yoshiaki Tamura wrote: >>> >>> > 1) I am not sure what would happen with -incoming exec; >> >> Nothing happens if used with other protocols, but I assume you're >> mentioning that it's not clear from the code, which makes sense. > > I assume nothing just because the code for other protocols isn't using > ft_mode. However, for -incoming exec the parsing code as it is now would > trigger if the executed file ended with "ft_mode". Hmm. Haven't thought about it. > So now I think it should be at the beginning of the scheme for forward > compatibility with everything. Is it possible to detect a migration scheme > that does not support Kemari, and give an error in that case? Having a scheme like "kemari:tcp:host:port" looks quite challenging to me. We can of course add some quick hacks for it, but adding a nice layered architecture should be more appropriate. Similar to protocols and formats in block layer? At the same time, I want to avoid anything over engineered. Thanks, Yoshi > > Paolo > > -- 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
