On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 16:55:10 +0300 Marcel Apfelbaum <marcel.apfelb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi David, Michael, > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 3:56 PM David Gibson <dgib...@redhat.com> wrote: > > [...] > [...] > [...] > [...] > [...] > [...] > [...] > [...] > [...] > [...] > [...] > [...] > [...] > [...] > [...] > > > > > > Probably the only way to handle for existing machine types. > > > > I agree > > > > > For new ones, can't we queue it in host memory somewhere? > > > > > I am not sure I understand what will be the flow. > - The user asks for a hotplug operation. > - QEMU deferred operation. > After that the operation may still fail, how would the user know if the > operation > succeeded or not? > > > > > I'm not actually convinced we can't do that even for existing machine > > types. > > > Is a Guest visible change, I don't think we can do it. How is it a guest visible change? > > So I'm a bit hesitant to suggest going ahead with this without > > looking a bit closer at whether we can implement a wait-for-ready in > > qemu, rather than forcing every user of qemu (human or machine) to do > > so. > > While I agree it is a pain from the usability point of view, hotplug > operations > are allowed to fail. This is not more than a corner case, ensuring the right > response (gracefully erroring out) may be enough. > > Thanks, > Marcel > > > > [...] -- David Gibson <dgib...@redhat.com> Principal Software Engineer, Virtualization, Red Hat
pgpwhYUKe1WIT.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature