From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56349) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WTA2V-0002pq-Oy for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 09:08:18 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WTA2L-0001mn-O1 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 09:08:11 -0400 Received: from mail-pd0-f179.google.com ([209.85.192.179]:36376) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WTA2L-0001mV-JB for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 09:08:01 -0400 Received: by mail-pd0-f179.google.com with SMTP id w10so3352421pde.10 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 06:08:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <533422AB.7080106@ozlabs.ru> Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 00:07:55 +1100 From: Alexey Kardashevskiy MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1395888071-28677-1-git-send-email-aik@ozlabs.ru> <53341B8F.7040904@suse.de> <53341E41.7050101@ozlabs.ru> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] target-ppc: Add @cpu_dt_id into migration stream List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: "qemu-ppc@nongnu.org" , =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= , QEMU Developers On 03/27/2014 11:57 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 27 March 2014 12:49, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: >> On 03/27/2014 11:37 PM, Andreas Färber wrote: >>> Am 27.03.2014 03:41, schrieb Alexey Kardashevskiy: >>>> This should prevent the destination guest from misbehaving when >>>> the threads number is different in "-smp" command. >>> >>> Sorry, I don't understand. When migrating, surely -smp needs to be the >>> same on source and destination, so how can they differ? >> >> >> The idea is that "-smp" does not migrate and if we run source and >> destination guests with different numbers in -smp, we end up with weird >> machine > > Yes, so don't do that. As I understand it: > (1) if you don't run QEMU with the exact same command line > and config at both ends then migration won't work > (2) we don't guarantee to detect and cleanly fail if you > don't do (1) > > It would probably be nice if we did detect config mismatches, Yep, we do not send the device tree (as libvirt does). Pure command line matching won't work. > but that seems to me like a problem we should be addressing > more globally than just for one particular config item for > one particular target... This is lot bigger that the issue I am trying to solve by this patch... Still nack? -- Alexey