On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 15:25:33 +0100 Greg Kurz <gk...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 13:50:20 +0100 > Cornelia Huck <cornelia.h...@de.ibm.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 09:28:21 +0100 > > Greg Kurz <gk...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 19:38:42 +0200 > > > Greg Kurz <gk...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > We don't support migration of mounted 9p shares. This is handled by a > > > > migration blocker. > > > > > > > > One would expect, however, to be able to migrate if the share is > > > > unmounted. > > > > Unfortunately virtio-9p-device does not register savevm handlers at all > > > > ! > > > > Migration succeeds and leaves the guest with a dangling device... > > > > > > > > This patch simply registers migration handlers for virtio-9p-device. > > > > Whether > > > > migration is possible or not still depends on the migration blocker. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kurz <gk...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > > --- > > > > > > Ping ? > > > > > > > Michael, Aneesh, > > > > > > > > This is the same patch minus the call to unregister_savevm() since we > > > > don't > > > > have an unrealize handler. > > > > > > > > I decided to simply drop all the other patches. Hot-unplug support is > > > > totally > > > > missing and definitely needs more work. I'll try to come up with a > > > > solution > > > > in its own series. > > > > > > > > Cheers. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Greg > > > > > > > > --- > > > > hw/9pfs/virtio-9p-device.c | 11 +++++++++++ > > > > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/hw/9pfs/virtio-9p-device.c b/hw/9pfs/virtio-9p-device.c > > > > index 93a407c45926..e3abcfaffb2a 100644 > > > > --- a/hw/9pfs/virtio-9p-device.c > > > > +++ b/hw/9pfs/virtio-9p-device.c > > > > @@ -43,6 +43,16 @@ static void virtio_9p_get_config(VirtIODevice *vdev, > > > > uint8_t *config) > > > > g_free(cfg); > > > > } > > > > > > > > +static void virtio_9p_save(QEMUFile *f, void *opaque) > > > > +{ > > > > + virtio_save(VIRTIO_DEVICE(opaque), f); > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > +static int virtio_9p_load(QEMUFile *f, void *opaque, int version_id) > > > > +{ > > > > + return virtio_load(VIRTIO_DEVICE(opaque), f, version_id); > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > static void virtio_9p_device_realize(DeviceState *dev, Error **errp) > > > > { > > > > VirtIODevice *vdev = VIRTIO_DEVICE(dev); > > > > @@ -130,6 +140,7 @@ static void virtio_9p_device_realize(DeviceState > > > > *dev, Error **errp) > > > > } > > > > v9fs_path_free(&path); > > > > > > > > + register_savevm(dev, "virtio-9p", -1, 1, virtio_9p_save, > > > > virtio_9p_load, s); > > > > return; > > > > out: > > > > g_free(s->ctx.fs_root); > > > > Probably dumb question: Is there no state in the V9fsState, or is it > > simply irrelevant if there are no mounts? > > My understanding is that V9fsState has state but it is not used when > there are no mounts... maybe worth mentioning in a comment or in the > changelog ? If V9fsState will look sensible after migration if there are no mounts, I think it's worth adding a comment in the code.