Michael Roth <mdr...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 11:57:29PM +0100, Juan Quintela wrote: >> Some cpu's definitions define CPU_SAVE_VERSION, others not, but they have >> defined cpu_save/load. > > I'm guessing this patch becomes useful later in the series, but as it stands > I'm not seeing where this helps with cpus like target-alpha that have > cpu_save/load defined but not CPU_SAVE_VERSION, except to save off common > cpu fields as opposed to before when we saved nothing. Maybe a > add CPU_SAVE_SUPPORTED and check that instead? Or merge this elsewhere in > the series?
We got completely rid of it in the end. What was happening here is that we were having code protected with CONFIG_USER_ONLY, and no migration code should ever be used there. As you guessed, later in the series, all is removed. Later, Juan.