On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 03:57:30PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote: > Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> Heh, this is going to be really broken with my patches :-) >>> >>> We're during qemu_ram_alloc() and we currently don't have a means to >>> associate ram with anything meaningful. This means that if you hot >>> plug on two ends in different orders (even with fixed slots), the >>> returned qemu_ram_alloc() pointers will be different for the same >>> device. This means when you did the live migration of the rom >>> contents, you'd get the wrong roms in the wrong places. >>> >>> I think we need to improve how we do qemu_ram_alloc() such that we >>> can associate some meaningful context with each allocated chunk that >>> we can migrate with the chunk of ram. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Anthony Liguori >>> >> >> Hmm. You think all this is 0.12 material? >> > I think it's stable-0.12 material because it's badly broken right now
I thought the rule was no guest visible changes in stable series? > but it's clearly not a candidate for 0.12.0 as it still doesn't work > reliably. > > I'm going to pull in Gerd's fix for 0.12.0. > > Regards, > > Anthony Liguori
