On Thu, Nov 02, 2023 at 03:25:25PM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Now let's try to apply this to migration.
>
> As long as we can have just one migration, we need just one QAPI object
> to configure it.
>
> We could create the object with -object / object_add. For convenience,
> we'd probably want to create one with default configuration
> automatically on demand.
>
> We could use qom-set to change configuration. If we're not comfortable
> with using qom-set for production, we could do something like
> blockdev-reopen instead.
Do we even need to do this via a QAPI object ?
Why are we not just making the obvious design change of passing everything
with the 'migrate' / 'migrate-incoming' commands that kick it off:
ie:
{ 'command': 'migrate',
'data': {'uri': 'str',
'*channels': [ 'MigrationChannel' ],
'*capabilities': [ 'MigrateCapability' ],
'*parameters': [ 'MigrateParameters' ],
'*detach': 'bool', '*resume': 'bool' } }
(deprecated bits trimmed for clarity)
and the counterpart:
{ 'command': 'migrate-incoming',
'data': {'*uri': 'str',
'*channels': [ 'MigrationChannel' ],
'*capabilities': [ 'MigrateCapability' ],
'*parameters': [ 'MigrateParameters' ] } }
such that the design is just like 99% of other commands which take
all their parameters directly. We already have 'migrate-set-parameters'
remaining for the runtime tunables, and can deprecate the usage of this
when migration is not already running, and similarly deprecate
migrate-set-capabilities.
With regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
