On 03/13/2012 11:18 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:33:33PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > > On 03/12/2012 11:04 AM, Wen Congyang wrote: > > > Do you have any other comments about this patch? > > > > > > > Not really, but I'm not 100% convinced the patch is worthwhile. It's > > likely to only be used by Linux, which has kexec facilities, and you can > > put talk to management via virtio-serial and describe the crash in more > > details than a simple hypercall. > > As mentioned before, I don't think virtio-serial is a good fit for this. > We want something that is simple & guaranteed always available. Using > virtio-serial requires significant setup work on both the host and guest. So what? It needs to be done anyway for the guest agent. > Many management application won't know to make a vioserial device available > to all guests they create. Then they won't know to deal with the panic event either. > Most administrators won't even configure kexec, > let alone virtio serial on top of it. It should be done by the OS vendor, not the individual admin. > The hypercall requires zero host > side config, and zero guest side config, which IMHO is what we need for > this feature. If it was this one feature, yes. But we keep getting more and more features like that and we bloat the hypervisor. There's a reason we have a host-to-guest channel, we should use it. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function -- 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
