On 08/04/2011 02:22 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 08/03/2011 11:42 PM, Juan Quintela wrote:
> I can certainly limit the change to IDE if we think machine, floppy,
> and rtl8139 are safe.
Ok, only IDE is broken, something done if we are not reverting the
others.
Floppy is broken too, and has the
On 08/04/2011 04:30 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Force the subsection to be sent and increment the version number.
That works if you want the smallest patch that fixes the bug. It
doesn't if you want something that is useful, too.
Paolo
On 08/04/2011 02:59 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>
> I have. If we are changing a protocol in an incompatible version, we
> can remove a lot of warts that current descriptions have. Not that
> Paolo protocol is bad, but if we are going to do some change, adding
> things like size, removing previou
On 08/04/2011 09:09 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 04.08.2011 15:20, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
On 08/04/2011 02:22 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 08/03/2011 11:42 PM, Juan Quintela wrote:
I can certainly limit the change to IDE if we think machine, floppy,
and rtl8139 are safe.
Ok, only IDE is broken,
Am 04.08.2011 15:20, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
> On 08/04/2011 02:22 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 08/03/2011 11:42 PM, Juan Quintela wrote:
I can certainly limit the change to IDE if we think machine, floppy,
and rtl8139 are safe.
>>>
>>> Ok, only IDE is broken, something done if we are
On 08/04/2011 02:22 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 08/03/2011 11:42 PM, Juan Quintela wrote:
> I can certainly limit the change to IDE if we think machine, floppy,
> and rtl8139 are safe.
Ok, only IDE is broken, something done if we are not reverting the
others.
Floppy is broken too, and has the
On 08/04/2011 07:59 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 03.08.2011 23:42, schrieb Juan Quintela:
Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 08/03/2011 04:00 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
I don't have a problem with Paolo's new protocol. In fact, I'm strong
in favor of applying it to master. But I don't like the idea of
a
Am 03.08.2011 23:42, schrieb Juan Quintela:
> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> On 08/03/2011 04:00 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
>
>> I don't have a problem with Paolo's new protocol. In fact, I'm strong
>> in favor of applying it to master. But I don't like the idea of
>> adding a new migration protocol w
On 08/03/2011 11:42 PM, Juan Quintela wrote:
> I can certainly limit the change to IDE if we think machine, floppy,
> and rtl8139 are safe.
Ok, only IDE is broken, something done if we are not reverting the others.
Floppy is broken too, and has the problem that the subsection is sent
almost
On 08/03/2011 07:44 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Not really true, with my series you can migrate new to old if you use
pc-0.xx as the machine on the source too.
But that is dangerous, no? It suffers from the same problem with
subsections.
Not in the common case where the source does not pu
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 08/03/2011 04:00 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
> I don't have a problem with Paolo's new protocol. In fact, I'm strong
> in favor of applying it to master. But I don't like the idea of
> adding a new migration protocol with no testing in master before
> putting it in a re
On 08/03/2011 04:00 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
Anthony Liguori wrote:
So my thinking is to be a bit more conservative. If we bump the
version number for 0.15.0, we make sure that we don't allow new -> old
migration. We will break old -> new migration, but we can fix that
(including in the sta
On 08/03/2011 03:34 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 03.08.2011 02:18, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
As Paolo points out, the migration protocol is ambiguous when using subsections
today. That means that even if we preserve subsections and change the protocol
accordingly, the old protocol w/subsections is s
On 08/03/2011 01:44 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 08/03/2011 02:12 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Paolo's proposed changes make newer QEMUs use a new protocol. It's
still possible to read the older protocol. This means that you can't
migrate new to old, but can migrate old to new.
Not really true, w
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 08/02/2011 06:25 PM, Juan Quintela wrote:
>> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>> As Paolo points out, the migration protocol is ambiguous when using
>>> subsections
>>> today. That means that even if we preserve subsections and change the
>>> protocol
>>> accordingly, the ol
Am 03.08.2011 02:18, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
> As Paolo points out, the migration protocol is ambiguous when using
> subsections
> today. That means that even if we preserve subsections and change the
> protocol
> accordingly, the old protocol w/subsections is still ambiguous.
>
> Remove subse
On 08/03/2011 02:12 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Paolo's proposed changes make newer QEMUs use a new protocol. It's
still possible to read the older protocol. This means that you can't
migrate new to old, but can migrate old to new.
Not really true, with my series you can migrate new to old if
On 2011-08-03 02:18, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> As Paolo points out, the migration protocol is ambiguous when using
> subsections
> today. That means that even if we preserve subsections and change the
> protocol
> accordingly, the old protocol w/subsections is still ambiguous.
>
> Remove subsect
As Paolo points out, the migration protocol is ambiguous when using subsections
today. That means that even if we preserve subsections and change the protocol
accordingly, the old protocol w/subsections is still ambiguous.
Remove subsection usage and bump any device using subsections. This effec
On 08/02/2011 06:25 PM, Juan Quintela wrote:
Anthony Liguori wrote:
As Paolo points out, the migration protocol is ambiguous when using subsections
today. That means that even if we preserve subsections and change the protocol
accordingly, the old protocol w/subsections is still ambiguous.
Re
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> As Paolo points out, the migration protocol is ambiguous when using
> subsections
> today. That means that even if we preserve subsections and change the
> protocol
> accordingly, the old protocol w/subsections is still ambiguous.
>
> Remove subsection usage and bump an
On 08/02/2011 06:08 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
As Paolo points out, the migration protocol is ambiguous when using subsections
today. That means that even if we preserve subsections and change the protocol
accordingly, the old protocol w/subsections is still ambiguous.
Remove subsection usage a
As Paolo points out, the migration protocol is ambiguous when using subsections
today. That means that even if we preserve subsections and change the protocol
accordingly, the old protocol w/subsections is still ambiguous.
Remove subsection usage and bump any device using subsections. This effec
23 matches
Mail list logo
