From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49525) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V5x8K-0005io-SK for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 04 Aug 2013 08:10:08 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V5x8D-0005UR-IH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 04 Aug 2013 08:10:00 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:45830 helo=mx2.suse.de) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V5x8D-0005UH-Cp for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 04 Aug 2013 08:09:53 -0400 Message-ID: <51FE448C.6070101@suse.de> Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2013 14:09:48 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20130804102034.GA31756@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] cross version compatibility and qemu version List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, hdegoede@redhat.com, Hannes Reinecke , pbonzini@redhat.com, Gerd Hoffmann Am 04.08.2013 12:25, schrieb Peter Maydell: > On 4 August 2013 11:20, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> I was looking at cross-version migration issues, in the >> hope that we can fix most of them for release 1.6. >> I noticed that we still use QEMU_VERSION in hardware. >=20 > We fixed most of these back in 2012, but I guess one or > two slipped through the net. >=20 >> hw/scsi/megasas.c: snprintf(info.package_version, 0x60, "%s-QEMU", = QEMU_VERSION); >> hw/usb/redirect.c:#define VERSION "qemu usb-redir guest " QEMU_VERSION >> >> These look like a bug that will break cross version >> compatibility - I think need to change both instances >> to qemu_get_version()? [...] >> megasas also includes the build date/time of QEMU - this >> clearly removed any hope to be exactly compatible. >> I'm not sure what to do with respect to this: >> let's stop the clock at an arbitrary date? >> Add property for management to control this as well? >=20 > I would go for using an arbitrary (and preferably > obviously wrong) date, or just dropping the fields > altogether if the hardware format permits (it probably > doesn't). Let's simply CC Hannes and ask him. :) Andreas --=20 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N=C3=BCrnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend=C3=B6rffer; HRB 16746 AG N=C3=BC= rnberg