On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 01:27:58PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 at 13:23, Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 02:09:17PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > > On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 10:49:43 +0000 > > > Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > It's question of whether we are willing to do unthinkable, > > > i.e. to break QEMU <-> guest ABI for isapc case by removing > > > corresponding fwcfg entries. > > > > There has never been any ABI stability requirement for 'isapc' > > as it is not a versioned machine type. > > > > > With migration ignored it shouldn't be a problem. > > > Question is: does anyone care about migration with isapc? > > > If not, I'd gladly axe smbios legacy parts in 9.1 > > > > Migration is irrelevant unless someone steps forward to > > commit to long term versioning of the machine type. > > But migration is also how we implement savevm/loadvm, > which are useful even when the machine type is not versioned. > So please don't put in migration blockers or similar that would > break that.
Yep, that's valid use case within the scope of a single QEMU release. We just can't guarantee it across versions. Often it'll probably work but it is liable to break at times. With 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 :|
