On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 08:53:28 -0500 Anthony Liguori <anth...@codemonkey.ws> wrote:
> On 08/01/2011 02:54 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 07:15:21PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> I think we've set the bar too low historically for introducing new > >> interfaces. I think Avi's new memory API is a good example of how we > >> should approach these things--do the vast majority of the thankless work up > >> front before initial merge. > > > > Yes, that seems to work a bit better. > > > > So how will we sort out and finalized the vmstate bits, > > http://wiki.qemu.org/Features/Migration/Next > > Is what I think we need to do next for migration. In terms of VMState, > I think we should can leave it in the current state its in for now. If > there is a desire to keep converting devices, that would be fine. > > Because I think the next thing to do in terms of changing device > serialization is to make serialization a proper virtual method of the > base object class. I think devices that use composition should also > serialize their children as part of their serialization. > > I think that falls under the banner of updating the object model. > > > QMP, and making > > sure we have one sort of error reporting? > > I've updated the QMP merge plan on the wiki: > > http://wiki.qemu.org/Features/QAPI#Merge_Plan Something that delays a full QMP conversion is designing the new interfaces (sometimes internal ones too). I feel that we're striving for perfection. While it's obvious that we need good interfaces, we have tons of commands and properly designing each of them will take ages. > We've merged phase one, and phase two shouldn't be that hard to merge as > the code is already written. It's just a matter of rebasing and > incorporating in an incremental fashion. > > Phase two eliminates qerror_report() in favor of passing Error **s. > It's very invasive which is why we decided to merge in two phases. > > Regards, > > Anthony Liguori >
