On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 03:43:21PM +0200, Jens Freimann wrote: > On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 04:36:48PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 10:24:56AM +0200, Jens Freimann wrote: > > > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 06:47:48PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 04:56:45PM +0200, Jens Freimann wrote: > > > > > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 11:04:15AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 10:45:05AM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > * Jens Freimann (jfreim...@redhat.com) wrote: > > > Why is it bad to fully re-create the device in case of a failed migration? > > > > Bad or not, I thought the whole point of doing it inside QEMU was > > to do something libvirt wouldn't be able to do (namely, > > unplugging the device while not freeing resources). If we are > > doing something that management software is already capable of > > doing, what's the point? > > Event though management software seems to be capable of it, a failover > implementation has never happened. As Michael says network failover is > a mechanism (there's no good reason not to use a PT device if it is > available), not a policy. We are now trying to implement it in a > simple way, contained within QEMU.
I don't think this is a strong enough reason to move complexity to QEMU. This might look like it's reducing complexity in the QEMU<->libvirt interface, but having QEMU unplugging/plugging devices automatically without libvirt involvement is actually complicating that interface. That said, I won't try to prevent this from being merged if the maintainers and libvirt developers agree on this interface. -- Eduardo
