On 11/12/2011 03:39 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 11/12/2011 04:27 AM, Avi Kivity wrote: >> On 11/11/2011 04:03 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >>> >>> I don't view not supporting migration with image formats as a >>> regression as it's never been a feature we've supported. While there >>> might be confusion about support around NFS, I think it's always been >>> clear that image formats cannot be used. >> >> Was there ever a statement to that effect? It was never clear to me and >> I doubt it was clear to anyone. > > You literally reviewed a patch who's subject was "block: allow > migration to work with image files"[1] that explained in gory detail > what the problem was. > > [1] http://mid.gmane.org/4C8CAD7C.5020102@xxxxxxxxxx > Isn't a patch fixing a problem with migrating image files a statement that we do support migrating image files? >> >>> >>> Given that, I don't think this is a candidate for 1.0. >>> >> >> Let's just skip 1.0 and do 1.1 instead. > > Let's stop being overly dramatic. You know as well as anyone that > image format support up until the coroutine conversion has had enough > problems that no one could practically be using them in a production > environment. They are used in production environments. > > Live migration is an availability feature. Up until the 1.0 release, > if you cared about availability and correctness, you would not be > using an image format. > Nevertheless, people who care about both availability and correctness, do use image formats. In reality, migration and image formats are critical features for virtualization workloads. Pretending they're not makes the 1.0 release a joke. -- I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this signature is too narrow to contain. -- 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
