From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46239) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z5ALJ-0001dY-9a for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 06:13:54 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z5ALB-0002qg-Cj for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 06:13:13 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:38876) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z5ALB-0002qH-7m for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 06:13:05 -0400 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 963DBB8BCA for ; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 10:13:04 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 12:13:01 +0200 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20150617121148-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> References: <1434480849-23093-1-git-send-email-dgilbert@redhat.com> <558124BD.8010807@redhat.com> <20150617094829-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <55812BC4.3000600@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <55812BC4.3000600@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Migration compatibility for serial List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: amit.shah@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git)" , quintela@redhat.com On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:11:48AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 17/06/2015 09:52, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > No, please. Upstream QEMU doesn't want to get into judgement about when > > > migration quality might be "good enough" that you can drop subsections. > > > It's one thing to perfect the .needed functions to make the appearance > > > of subsections as unlikely as possible, but adding flags is not > > > something we've done so far---and not something at least *I* want to do. > > > > Not like this, sure. But e.g. patches that force specific fields to > > behave in a way consistent with QEMU 2.2, with appropriate > > doducmentation would be ok I think. > > That's not what 2.2 means in "pc-i440fx-2.2". It means "same hardware > as 2.2", not "bug-compatible with 2.2". > > Refining the .needed functions (e.g. see commit bfa7362889) is just > that: describing when a subsection is needed. Forcing specific fields > to behave in a way consistent with QEMU 2.2 is bug compatibility. > > Paolo We do bug-compatible if it's not a big pain, too. -- MST