On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 07:17:59AM -0700, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Il 15/10/2013 15:51, Anthony Liguori ha scritto: > >> From 41/43: > >> > >> "The interface is actually backwards-compatible with > >> existing PIIX4 ACPI (though not migration compatible)." > >> > >> And does "AFAIK" translate to, "I have tested migration from new and > >> old and old and new with this series"? I suspect the answer is no. > > > > Since when do we support migration from new to old? > > We allow it to break because we only send the newest version of things > but we should try our best to avoid that from happening. That's why > we have things like subsections. > > Regards, > > Anthony Liguori > > > Paolo
I addressed this using _TEST VMSTATE macros: +static bool vmstate_test_use_acpi_pci_hotplug(void *opaque, int version_id) +{ + PIIX4PMState *s = opaque; + return s->use_acpi_pci_hotplug; +} + +static bool vmstate_test_no_use_acpi_pci_hotplug(void *opaque, int version_id) +{ + PIIX4PMState *s = opaque; + return !s->use_acpi_pci_hotplug; +} + use_acpi_pci_hotplug is set only for new machine. Did you miss this during review or is something wrong with this? -- MST