On 02/28/2011 02:45 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 02/28/2011 02:38 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
We don't separate configuration from guest state today. Instead of
setting ourselves up for failure by setting an unrealistic standard
that we try to achieve and never do, let's embrace the system that
is working for us today. We are authoritative for everything and
guest state is intimately tied to the virtual machine configuration.
"we are authoritative for everything" is a clean break from
everything that's being done today. It's also a clean break from the
model of central management plus database. We can't force it on people.
No, it isn't. This has been the way QEMU has always been.
QEMU has always and will always continue to be useful in the absence
of a management layer. That means that it will mix modifications to
configuration with guest actions.
To avoid races, a management tool needs to either poll QEMU or listen
for events to know when QEMU initiates a configuration change. This
is how tools are written today.
The only thing being discussed is how to handle a very small and rare
race condition whereas QEMU may send an notification to a crashed
management tool *and* QEMU crashes before the management tool restarts.
The only two options to solve this problem are synchronous
notifications or a QEMU global state file. Since the former is a
radical change to our existing API, the later is a much more
reasonable option.
If a management tool doesn't care about this race, it can simply not
use the global state file.
You're just ignoring what I've written.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
