* Paolo Bonzini (pbonz...@redhat.com) wrote: > > > 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.
Whatever choice upstream may have made, that was a long time ago and doesn't mean it can't change. Dave > > Paolo -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
