On 12/15/2010 08:04 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
This assuming upstream developers do not care about downstreams.
To give a chance for downstream to cherry-pick changes, upstream
should use subsections instead of version ids too.
Then version ids should be deprecated altogether. Nothing again
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 06:12:25PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 12/15/2010 11:00 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>Indeed, subsections are for data that is rarely needed so that
> >>there's some chance (sometimes ~100%) of migration working
> >>seemlessly.
> >
> >If a subsection arrives that qe
On 12/15/2010 11:00 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Indeed, subsections are for data that is rarely needed so that
there's some chance (sometimes ~100%) of migration working
seemlessly.
If a subsection arrives that qemu does
not know about, won't migratin fail?
Yes, that's why rarely needed =>
On Wed, 2010-12-15 at 12:07 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 08:41:55AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-12-14 at 14:32 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 10:00:48PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2010-12-14 at 06:43
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 04:59:55PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 12/14/2010 04:41 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> >> Maybe in this particular case the advantage is minimal.
> >> But it seems easier to stick to a rule of no more version
> >> bumps than argue about each case.
> >
> >Do we have suc
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 08:41:55AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-12-14 at 14:32 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 10:00:48PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2010-12-14 at 06:43 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 12:
On 12/14/2010 04:41 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> Maybe in this particular case the advantage is minimal.
> But it seems easier to stick to a rule of no more version
> bumps than argue about each case.
Do we have such a rule? If we have a subsection who's needed function
is return 1, I think
On Tue, 2010-12-14 at 14:32 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 10:00:48PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-12-14 at 06:43 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 12:15:08PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2010-12-13 at 21:06
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 10:00:48PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-12-14 at 06:43 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 12:15:08PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2010-12-13 at 21:06 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:
On Tue, 2010-12-14 at 06:43 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 12:15:08PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-12-13 at 21:06 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:59:16AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2010-12-13 at 20:54
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 12:15:08PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-12-13 at 21:06 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:59:16AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2010-12-13 at 20:54 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:
On Mon, 2010-12-13 at 21:06 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:59:16AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-12-13 at 20:54 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:00:44AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2010-12-13 at 19:50
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:59:16AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-12-13 at 20:54 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:00:44AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2010-12-13 at 19:50 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 10:
On Mon, 2010-12-13 at 20:54 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:00:44AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-12-13 at 19:50 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 10:43:22AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > > So, unfortunately, I stand
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:00:44AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-12-13 at 19:50 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 10:43:22AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > So, unfortunately, I stand by my original patch.
> >
> > What about the one that put -1 in save
On Mon, 2010-12-13 at 19:50 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 10:43:22AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > So, unfortunately, I stand by my original patch.
>
> What about the one that put -1 in saved index for a hotplugged device?
There are still examples that don't work
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 10:43:22AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> So, unfortunately, I stand by my original patch.
What about the one that put -1 in saved index for a hotplugged device?
--
MST
On Mon, 2010-12-13 at 02:55 +0530, Juan Quintela wrote:
> Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Sun, 2010-12-12 at 20:07 +0530, Juan Quintela wrote:
> >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
> >> > On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 05:23:39PM +0530, Juan Quintela wrote:
> >> >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
> >> >> > On Thu
Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-12-12 at 20:07 +0530, Juan Quintela wrote:
>> "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
>> > On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 05:23:39PM +0530, Juan Quintela wrote:
>> >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
>> >> > On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 03:14:17PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
>>
>> >>
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 09:29:05AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-12-12 at 20:07 +0530, Juan Quintela wrote:
> > "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
> > > On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 05:23:39PM +0530, Juan Quintela wrote:
> > >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
> > >> > On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 03:14
On Sun, 2010-12-12 at 20:07 +0530, Juan Quintela wrote:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 05:23:39PM +0530, Juan Quintela wrote:
> >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 03:14:17PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
>
> >> > How about we keep migrating t
"Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 05:23:39PM +0530, Juan Quintela wrote:
>> "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
>> > On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 03:14:17PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
>> > How about we keep migrating the index for the benefit of
>> > old versions, but ignore the value
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 05:23:39PM +0530, Juan Quintela wrote:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 03:14:17PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 22:49 +0100, Juan Quintela wrote:
> >> > Alex Williamson wrote:
> >> > > The cpu_register_io_memory() value
"Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 03:14:17PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
>> On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 22:49 +0100, Juan Quintela wrote:
>> > Alex Williamson wrote:
>> > > The cpu_register_io_memory() value is unique to the VM instance and
>> > > should not be restored after migr
On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 03:14:17PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 22:49 +0100, Juan Quintela wrote:
> > Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > The cpu_register_io_memory() value is unique to the VM instance and
> > > should not be restored after migration/save. Doing so means we
> >
Alex Williamson wrote:
> The cpu_register_io_memory() value is unique to the VM instance and
> should not be restored after migration/save. Doing so means we
> could be pointing at arbitrary device's io regions after migration/restore.
>
> In this case, if we start a VM with a single rtl8139, hot
On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 22:49 +0100, Juan Quintela wrote:
> Alex Williamson wrote:
> > The cpu_register_io_memory() value is unique to the VM instance and
> > should not be restored after migration/save. Doing so means we
> > could be pointing at arbitrary device's io regions after migration/restor
27 matches
Mail list logo
