On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 07:54:21AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 10/04/2011 09:05 PM, Stefan Berger wrote:
> >On 10/03/2011 09:43 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>On 10/03/2011 08:24 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>>On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 07:51:00AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >Here a
On 10/04/2011 09:05 PM, Stefan Berger wrote:
On 10/03/2011 09:43 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 10/03/2011 08:24 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 07:51:00AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Here are some suggestions:
- Let's make the protocol be BER directly.
As a first step,
On 10/05/2011 06:28 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 10:00:48AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Yes, it's easy to quantify. I think the following gives us
the offset before and after, so the difference is the size
we seek, right?
OK, Orit (Cc'd) did some research - this is a
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 10:00:48AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >Yes, it's easy to quantify. I think the following gives us
> >the offset before and after, so the difference is the size
> >we seek, right?
OK, Orit (Cc'd) did some research - this is a booting
while still in grub, size probably d
On 10/03/2011 09:43 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 10/03/2011 08:24 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 07:51:00AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Here are some suggestions:
- Let's make the protocol be BER directly.
As a first step, use a single octet string for
the whole
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 11:05:02AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 10/03/2011 10:45 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>BTW, putting this info properly into migration stats would probably
> >>be pretty useful.
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >>
> >>Anthony Liguori
> >
> >Problem is adding anything to monitor
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 11:05:02AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 10/03/2011 10:45 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>BTW, putting this info properly into migration stats would probably
> >>be pretty useful.
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >>
> >>Anthony Liguori
> >
> >Problem is adding anything to monitor
On 10/03/2011 09:15 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 08:43:54AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Having the ability to ignore some fields is not enough.
But it is also really required.
I agree. It's the principle of being conservative in what you send and liberal
in what
On 10/03/2011 10:45 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
BTW, putting this info properly into migration stats would probably
be pretty useful.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
Problem is adding anything to monitor makes me worry
about future compatibility so much I usually just give up.
IMO we really need a
On 10/03/2011 10:58 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 10:44:45AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Specifically
the case where first field in a sequence tells
you the meaning of the following ones?
Can you give me the example in ASN.1?
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
That would be
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 10:44:45AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>>Specifically
> >>>the case where first field in a sequence tells
> >>>you the meaning of the following ones?
> >>
> >>Can you give me the example in ASN.1?
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >>
> >>Anthony Liguori
> >
> >That would be a selecti
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 10:00:48AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 10/03/2011 09:41 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 08:51:10AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>On 10/03/2011 08:38 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>>On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 07:55:48AM -0500, Anthony Liguo
On 10/03/2011 10:29 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 09:42:02AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 10/03/2011 09:11 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 08:43:54AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
visit_start_array(v, "entries", errp);
for (int i = 0; i
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 09:56:47AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 10/03/2011 09:18 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>skip_indefinite:
> >> while tag != CANARY:
> >> if tag == INT:
> >> visit_type_int(v, NULL, NULL, errp);
> >> elif tag == STRING:
> >> visit_type_str(v, NUL
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 09:55:45AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> How I see this all evolving in the future is that we would have a
> formal protocol specification. From that spec, we would generate
> Visitors. This would handle taking what's on the wire and building
> an in-memory tree. If an
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 09:42:02AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 10/03/2011 09:11 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 08:43:54AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> visit_start_array(v, "entries", errp);
> for (int i = 0; i< s->size; i++) {
> visit_type_int(
On 10/03/2011 09:41 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 08:51:10AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 10/03/2011 08:38 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 07:55:48AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 10/02/2011 04:08 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Sun, Oct 0
On 10/03/2011 09:18 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
skip_indefinite:
while tag != CANARY:
if tag == INT:
visit_type_int(v, NULL, NULL, errp);
elif tag == STRING:
visit_type_str(v, NULL, NULL, errp);
elif tag == INDEFINITE:
visit_start_struct(v, NULL, NULL, err
On 10/03/2011 09:11 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 08:43:54AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
visit_start_array(v, "entries", errp);
for (int i = 0; i< s->size; i++) {
visit_type_int(v, NULL,&s->entry[i], errp);
}
visit_end_array(v, errp);
Sequences can encode struc
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 08:51:10AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 10/03/2011 08:38 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 07:55:48AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>On 10/02/2011 04:08 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>>On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 04:21:47PM -0400, Stefan Berger
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 08:48:05AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 10/03/2011 08:30 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 08:18:31AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>On 10/03/2011 08:10 AM, Stefan Berger wrote:
> >>>I am doing that. Indefinite length encoding *would* be a pro
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 08:43:54AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Having the ability to ignore some fields is not enough.
But it is also really required.
> We need to
> also be able to split a single field into multiple fields, and event
> split a single device into multiple devices. If we're d
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 08:43:54AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>visit_start_array(v, "entries", errp);
> >>for (int i = 0; i< s->size; i++) {
> >> visit_type_int(v, NULL,&s->entry[i], errp);
> >>}
> >>visit_end_array(v, errp);
> >
> >Sequences can encode structures not just arrays.
> >How
On 10/03/2011 08:38 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 07:55:48AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 10/02/2011 04:08 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 04:21:47PM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
4) Implement the BERVisitor and make this the default migration
On 10/03/2011 08:30 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 08:18:31AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 10/03/2011 08:10 AM, Stefan Berger wrote:
I am doing that. Indefinite length encoding *would* be a problem because you
cannot push the size onto the stack so that you could skip
On 10/03/2011 08:24 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 07:51:00AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Here are some suggestions:
- Let's make the protocol be BER directly.
As a first step, use a single octet string for
the whole of data. Next, start splitting this up.
This
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 07:55:48AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 10/02/2011 04:08 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 04:21:47PM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
> >>
> >>>4) Implement the BERVisitor and make this the default migration protocol.
> >>>
> >>>Most of the work will
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 08:18:31AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 10/03/2011 08:10 AM, Stefan Berger wrote:
> >I am doing that. Indefinite length encoding *would* be a problem because you
> >cannot push the size onto the stack so that you could skip to the end of the
> >structure.
>
> For an i
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 07:51:00AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >Here are some suggestions:
> >
> >- Let's make the protocol be BER directly.
> > As a first step, use a single octet string for
> > the whole of data. Next, start splitting this up.
>
> This can't be done without breaking the
On 10/03/2011 08:10 AM, Stefan Berger wrote:
I am doing that. Indefinite length encoding *would* be a problem because you
cannot push the size onto the stack so that you could skip to the end of the
structure.
For an indefinite length encoding, you just have to keep reading the stream at
end_s
On 10/03/2011 08:55 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 10/02/2011 04:08 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 04:21:47PM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
4) Implement the BERVisitor and make this the default migration
protocol.
Most of the work will be in 1), though with the implement
On 10/02/2011 04:08 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 04:21:47PM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
4) Implement the BERVisitor and make this the default migration protocol.
Most of the work will be in 1), though with the implementation in this series
we should be able to do it
On 10/03/2011 01:46 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 09:41:41AM -0500, Michael Roth wrote:
OVERVIEW
This patch series implements a QEMUFile Visitor class that's intended to abstract
away direct calls to qemu_put_*/qemu_get_* for save/load functions. Currently this
is done
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 09:41:41AM -0500, Michael Roth wrote:
> OVERVIEW
>
> This patch series implements a QEMUFile Visitor class that's intended to
> abstract away direct calls to qemu_put_*/qemu_get_* for save/load functions.
> Currently this is done by always creating a
> QEMUFileInputVisit
On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 04:21:47PM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
>
> >4) Implement the BERVisitor and make this the default migration protocol.
> >
> >Most of the work will be in 1), though with the implementation in this
> >series we should be able to do it incrementally. I'm not sure if the best
4) Implement the BERVisitor and make this the default migration protocol.
Most of the work will be in 1), though with the implementation in this series
we should be able to do it incrementally. I'm not sure if the best approach is
doing the mechanical phase 1 conversion, then doing phase 2 so
OVERVIEW
This patch series implements a QEMUFile Visitor class that's intended to
abstract away direct calls to qemu_put_*/qemu_get_* for save/load functions.
Currently this is done by always creating a
QEMUFileInputVisitor/QEMUFileOutputVisitor pair with each call to
qemu_fopen_ops() and main
37 matches
Mail list logo
