From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=56869 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OOAaQ-0004X3-G4
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 10:24:27 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <lcapitulino@redhat.com>) id 1OOAaO-0004iB-DY
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 10:24:26 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:4352)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <lcapitulino@redhat.com>) id 1OOAaO-0004hv-4p
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 10:24:24 -0400
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 11:24:14 -0300
From: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20100614112414.1bead4ba@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C16357B.70308@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <cover.1276085283.git.quintela@redhat.com>
	<20100609175215.2e2071a0@redhat.com> <m3mxv3p3o8.fsf@trasno.mitica>
	<20100611113022.27490bfe@redhat.com>
	<4C124A72.9000807@codemonkey.ws> <m3zkz0bj06.fsf@trasno.mitica>
	<4C16357B.70308@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] Add QMP migration events
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 08:58:19 -0500
Anthony Liguori <aliguori@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> For 0.13, we need to focus on introducing the least disruptive change 
> that addresses the fundamental requirement--allow clients to avoid a 
> polling loop for determining when migration ends.  Having a single event 
> with no payload is an extremely simple change.

 Agreed.

 Actually, I'm slightly against introducing the done event too. While the
polling is undesired, I don't think that having an event only for a release
is worth it.