From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NuXG2-0005qJ-Es for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 16:32:54 -0400 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=36881 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NuXG0-0005mk-IV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 16:32:53 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NuXFy-0007Jf-QQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 16:32:52 -0400 Received: from mail-pz0-f194.google.com ([209.85.222.194]:43945) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NuXFy-0007JU-Lb for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 16:32:50 -0400 Received: by pzk32 with SMTP id 32so1257808pzk.4 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 13:32:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4BAA76EA.2060601@codemonkey.ws> Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:32:42 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [libvirt] Supporting hypervisor specific APIs in libvirt References: <4BA7C40C.2040505@codemonkey.ws> <20100323145105.GV16253@redhat.com> <4BA8D8A9.7090308@codemonkey.ws> <201003231557.19474.paul@codesourcery.com> <4BA8E6FC.9080207@codemonkey.ws> <4BA901B5.3020704@redhat.com> <4BA9A066.3070904@redhat.com> <20100324103643.GB624@redhat.com> <4BA9EC88.6000906@redhat.com> <20100324134250.38822113@redhat.com> <4BAA6CD9.6060001@redhat.com> <20100324171219.4365318b@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20100324171219.4365318b@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Luiz Capitulino Cc: "libvir-list@redhat.com" , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Avi Kivity , Paul Brook On 03/24/2010 03:12 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 21:49:45 +0200 > Avi Kivity wrote: > > >> On 03/24/2010 06:42 PM, Luiz Capitulino wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 12:42:16 +0200 >>> Avi Kivity wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> So, at best qemud is a toy for people who are annoyed by libvirt. >>>> >>>> >>> Is the reason for doing this in qemu because libvirt is annoying? >>> >> Mostly. >> >> >>> I don't see >>> how adding yet another layer/daemon is going to improve ours and user's life >>> (the same applies for libqemu). >>> >>> >> libvirt becomes optional. >> > I think it should only be optional if all you want is to run a single VM > in this case what seems to be missing on our side is a _real_ GUI, bundled > with QEMU potentially written in a high-level language. > That's a separate problem. > Then we make virt-manager optional and this is good because we can sync > features way faster and we don't have to care about _managing_ several > VMs, our world in terms of usability and maintainability is about one VM. > > IMVHO, everything else should be done by third-party tools like libvirt, > we just provide the means for it. > We need to have a common management interface for third party tools. libvirt cannot be that today because of the fact that it doesn't support all of our features. What we need to figure out is how we can work with the libvirt team to fix this. So far, a libqemu.so with a flexible transport that could be used directly by a libvirt user (ala cairo/gdk type interactions) seems like the best solution to me. Regards, Anthony Liguori