At 03/15/2012 01:18 AM, Luiz Capitulino Wrote: > On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 10:11:35 +0800 > Wen Congyang <we...@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: >
<cut> > > You just dropped a few asynchronous bits and resent this as a synchronous > command, letting all the asynchronous infrastructure in. This is bad, as the > command is more complex then it should be and doesn't make full use of the > added infrastructure. > > For example, does the synchronous version really uses DumpState? If it > doesn't, > let's just drop it and everything else which is not necessary. > > *However*, note that while it's fine with me to have this as a synchronous > command we need a few more ACKs (from libvirt and Anthony and/or Jan). So, I > wouldn't go too far on making changes before we get those ACKs. > Hi, Anthony, Luiz, Eric, Jan At 03/15/2012 01:49 AM, Anthony Liguori Wrote: > > Can we start by posting a non-RFC because we start discussing committing > this. At 03/15/2012 01:37 AM, Eric Blake Wrote: > are sufficient that I'm okay with a synchronous-only version for qemu > 1.1. So I think Anthony and Eric may ACK to it. Jan reviewed the early version, and give many comments. So I think he also ACKs to it. Is it OK to post non-RFC version? Thanks Wen Congyang
