On 17/06/2015 12:13, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:11:48AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> >> >> On 17/06/2015 09:52, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>>> No, please. Upstream QEMU doesn't want to get into judgement about when >>>> migration quality might be "good enough" that you can drop subsections. >>>> It's one thing to perfect the .needed functions to make the appearance >>>> of subsections as unlikely as possible, but adding flags is not >>>> something we've done so far---and not something at least *I* want to do. >>> >>> Not like this, sure. But e.g. patches that force specific fields to >>> behave in a way consistent with QEMU 2.2, with appropriate >>> doducmentation would be ok I think. >> >> That's not what 2.2 means in "pc-i440fx-2.2". It means "same hardware >> as 2.2", not "bug-compatible with 2.2". >> >> Refining the .needed functions (e.g. see commit bfa7362889) is just >> that: describing when a subsection is needed. Forcing specific fields >> to behave in a way consistent with QEMU 2.2 is bug compatibility. > > We do bug-compatible if it's not a big pain, too.
Where, in the specific case of migration? Like Juan, I see where you're coming from. But it's a slippery slope, and upstream chose not to go down it. Paolo
