At 03/13/2012 06:47 PM, Avi Kivity Wrote: > On 03/13/2012 11:18 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:33:33PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: >>> On 03/12/2012 11:04 AM, Wen Congyang wrote: >>>> Do you have any other comments about this patch? >>>> >>> >>> Not really, but I'm not 100% convinced the patch is worthwhile. It's >>> likely to only be used by Linux, which has kexec facilities, and you can >>> put talk to management via virtio-serial and describe the crash in more >>> details than a simple hypercall. >> >> As mentioned before, I don't think virtio-serial is a good fit for this. >> We want something that is simple & guaranteed always available. Using >> virtio-serial requires significant setup work on both the host and guest. > > So what? It needs to be done anyway for the guest agent. > >> Many management application won't know to make a vioserial device available >> to all guests they create. > > Then they won't know to deal with the panic event either. > >> Most administrators won't even configure kexec, >> let alone virtio serial on top of it. > > It should be done by the OS vendor, not the individual admin. > >> The hypercall requires zero host >> side config, and zero guest side config, which IMHO is what we need for >> this feature. > > If it was this one feature, yes. But we keep getting more and more > features like that and we bloat the hypervisor. There's a reason we > have a host-to-guest channel, we should use it. >
I donot know how to use virtio-serial. I start vm like this: qemu ...\ -device virtio-serial \ -chardev socket,path=/tmp/foo,server,nowait,id=foo \ -device virtserialport,chardev=foo,name=port1 ... You said that there are too many channels. Does it mean /tmp/foo is a channel? Thanks Wen Congyang
