Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/21] Kemari for KVM 0.2

[Stefan Hajnoczi]

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Yoshiaki Tamura
<address@hidden> wrote:
> 2010/11/29 Paul Brook <address@hidden>:
>>> > If devices incorrectly claim support for live migration, then that should
>>> > also be fixed, either by removing the broken code or by making it work.
>>>
>>> I totally agree with you.
>>>
>>> > AFAICT your current proposal is just feeding back the results of some
>>> > fairly specific QA testing.  I'd rather not get into that game.  The
>>> > correct response in the context of upstream development is to file a bug
>>> > and/or fix the code. We already have config files that allow third party
>>> > packagers to remove devices they don't want to support.
>>>
>>> Sorry, I didn't get what you're trying to tell me.  My plan would
>>> be to initially start from a subset of devices, and gradually
>>> grow the number of devices that Kemari works with.  While this
>>> process, it'll include what you said above, file a but and/or fix
>>> the code.  Am I missing what you're saying?
>>
>> My point is that the whitelist shouldn't exist at all.  Devices either 
>> support
>> migration or they don't.  Having some sort of separate whitelist is the wrong
>> way to determine which devices support migration.
>
> Alright!
>
> Then if a user encounters a problem with Kemari, we'll fix Kemari
> or the devices or both. Correct?

Is this a fair summary: any device that supports live migration workw
under Kemari?

(If such a device does not work under Kemari then this is a bug that
needs to be fixed in live migration, Kemari, or the device.)

Stefan