On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 08:00:53PM +0200, Greg Kurz wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 15:53:08 +0300
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:16:40AM +0200, Greg Kurz wrote:
> > > We already have a blocker to prevent migration of an active virtio-9p
> > > device.
> > > But in fa
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 15:53:08 +0300
"Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:16:40AM +0200, Greg Kurz wrote:
> > We already have a blocker to prevent migration of an active virtio-9p
> > device.
> > But in fact, there is no migration support at all for 9p, even if the device
> > i
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:16:40AM +0200, Greg Kurz wrote:
> We already have a blocker to prevent migration of an active virtio-9p device.
> But in fact, there is no migration support at all for 9p, even if the device
> is considered to be quiescent (when the VirtFS share is not mounted):
> migrat
We already have a blocker to prevent migration of an active virtio-9p device.
But in fact, there is no migration support at all for 9p, even if the device
is considered to be quiescent (when the VirtFS share is not mounted): migration
succeeds but the device is lost in the restarted guest.
Hotunplu
