On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 10:42:48AM -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > I am happy that Libvirt is pushing local migration/live patching support, but > at the same time I am wondering what changed from what you said here:
Err, this isn't libvirt pushing local migration. I'm simply re-posting these patches on behalf of Shaju who is unable to post the patches due to our broken mail server. Don't take this as meaning that I approve of the patches. They're simply here for discussion as any other patch proposal is. > https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2017-September/msg00489.html That is largely still my view. > To give you a background, we have live patching enhancements in IBM backlog > since a few years ago, and one on the reasons these were being postponed > time and time again were the lack of Libvirt support and this direction of > "Libvirt is not interested in supporting it". And this message above was being > used internally as the rationale for it. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
