On 26 February 2014 10:02, alvise rigo <a.r...@virtualopensystems.com> wrote: > I agree that this is a sort of workaround, but it seems to me that a > proper solution is not possible without changing the ideas contemplated > now in the migration code. > Are we willing to accept some major changes in the code to embrace > this type of migration?
Well, the migration code as it stands is in theory supposed to cope with KVM<->TCG migration. I would expect that we'd need to improve a number of places where our TCG cpreg emulation is wrong. thanks -- PMM
