2011/1/29 Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> On 01/28/2011 04:05 PM, Yoshiaki Tamura wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> I was simply thinking of
>
> if (strstart (uri, "kemari:", &p)) {
> ft_mode = FT_INIT;
> uri = p;
> }
>
> :)
That's the hack I was imaging :)
Maybe this is just an issue of preference, but I'm not sure
adding "kemari:" to be intuitive. If there were similar
extensions having the same problem, I would have agreed quickly.
I originally didn't have this idea, but simply adding -kemari
separate from -incoming isn't enough?
Thanks,
Yoshi
> I think the same could be done for outgoing migration instead of -k
> actually.
>
> 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
>
--
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
