Michael Roth <mdr...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 11:57:31PM +0100, Juan Quintela wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Juan Quintela <quint...@redhat.com> >> --- >> target-unicore32/cpu.h | 2 -- >> 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/target-unicore32/cpu.h b/target-unicore32/cpu.h >> index a3f8589..be85250 100644 >> --- a/target-unicore32/cpu.h >> +++ b/target-unicore32/cpu.h >> @@ -134,8 +134,6 @@ int uc32_cpu_signal_handler(int host_signum, void >> *pinfo, void *puc); >> int uc32_cpu_handle_mmu_fault(CPUUniCore32State *env, target_ulong address, >> int rw, >> int mmu_idx); >> >> -#define CPU_SAVE_VERSION 2 >> - > > Would it be pretty straightforward to give this the same treatment as > the cpus in #2? Would be nice to have a migration blocker registered > rather than just continuing to allow users to try it hopelessly.
What to do here, then? Basically we got: x86(32 and 64): fully supported arm: almost completely working others (like ppc and sparc): more devices missing than arm, but "could work" if somebody works on them. the rest: no hope at all of working without lot of time. With this series I tried to simplify the code (a lot) and port to vmstate. Not to change behaviour (or at least the minimum possible). Notice that we mark not migratable cpus as such (not with migration blockers, though). Later, Juan.
