On (Mon) 07 Feb 2011 [20:25:59], Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 02/07/2011 08:14 PM, Amit Shah wrote:
> >On (Sun) 06 Feb 2011 [11:50:46], Amit Shah wrote:
> >>On (Fri) 04 Feb 2011 [06:52:04], Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>>On 02/04/2011 02:54 AM, Amit Shah wrote:
> >>>>This can happen if a port gets unplugged before guest has chance to
> >>>>initialise vqs.
> >>>>
> >>>>Reported-by: Juan Quintela<quint...@redhat.com>
> >>>>Signed-off-by: Amit Shah<amit.s...@redhat.com>
> >>>Applied to master, Thanks.
> >>What's the strategy to commit to 0.14?
> >Nevermind; saw it in the last pull.
>
> Yes, but if we decide to make this a subsection, we may need to
> revert this before the 0.14.0 release because once 0.14.0 goes out,
> we can't go back and change it.
Right.
However, virtio doesn't have vmstate yet. Are we willing to put vmstate
in 0.14 to introduce subsections? I doubt that.
> If that's how you want to approach it, then please send the revert
> patches. The flow_control=0 patches you sent out before definitely
> aren't the right approach for migration compatibility.
I understand, I've not looked at that thread yet, but if we want to do
that for 0.14 w/o vmstate, that might be the only way.
Amit
