On 10/11/2011 04:34 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 10/11/2011 09:01 AM, Avi Kivity wrote: >> On 10/11/2011 03:57 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >>>> What I'm trying to avoid is making choices today that close the >>>> door on >>>> better fixes in the future. >>> >>> >>> I think Juan made a really good point in his earlier post. We need to >>> focus on better testing for migration. With a solid migration torture >>> test, we can probably eliminate much of the problems we're facing >>> today. >> >> Agree, fingerprinting vmstate should help a lot. Actually I don't think >> the visitor is strictly required, the fingerprinter can just walk >> vmstate structs. > > You mean generating a schema?
Dumping the vmstate descriptions in a canonical format, and having a tools that verifies that version A is compatible with version B. > I was talking about an active migration torture test. Those are good, but inherently limited. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
