Am 18.03.2013 21:43, schrieb Igor Mitsyanko: > > On Mar 19, 2013 12:21 AM, "Peter Maydell" <peter.mayd...@linaro.org > <mailto:peter.mayd...@linaro.org>> wrote: >> >> On 18 March 2013 19:48, Igor Mitsyanko <i.mitsya...@gmail.com > <mailto:i.mitsya...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> On 03/18/2013 09:47 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: >> >>> >> >>> + VMSTATE_BUFFER_UNSAFE(last_active, GICState, 0, >> >>> + GIC_MAXIRQ * NCPU * sizeof(uint16_t)), >> >> > I'm not sure about this one, do we have any guarantees that it will > always >> > be tightly packed? What will happen when we will try to migrate VM > between >> > BE and LE hosts? >> >> Ugh. I think the packing is ok but I hadn't thought about the >> endianness issue. >> >> Gerd and I were talking on IRC about 2D arrays. I think we came to >> the conclusion that you could provide a new set of vmstate macros >> for 2D arrays which basically work just like the existing 1D array >> ones except that the typecheck is different. >> >> (vmstate.h is getting hugely repetitive to the point that I'm >> really tempted to say we should just autogenerate it. That way >> you could define a fairly small set of things (arrays, base types, >> safe vs unsafe, etc) and have a script generate the cross product, >> rather than the current setup where there is a lot of hand written >> repetition and a tendency to gaps in the coverage where nobody's >> using them yet.) >> >> -- PMM > > I can recall a qemu-devel discussion over a long-term QOM goals a while > ago.Somebody suggested that in the future we will define devices state > structures using some special macro which will be parsed during > compilation, serializing each member for both QOM introspection and > vmstate migration.
QIDL - CC'ing Michael. Andreas -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
