From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=60370 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PSDcH-0006Ss-VQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 13 Dec 2010 13:59:24 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PSDcF-0001B8-MQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 13 Dec 2010 13:59:21 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:54318) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PSDcF-0001Ae-Fk for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 13 Dec 2010 13:59:19 -0500 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 (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oBDIxIYY007933 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 13 Dec 2010 13:59:18 -0500 From: Alex Williamson In-Reply-To: <20101213185437.GB9554@redhat.com> References: <1291932857.2926.20.camel@x201> <20101212102812.GA13033@redhat.com> <20101212120120.GA15016@redhat.com> <1292171345.2857.43.camel@x201> <1292262202.2857.114.camel@x201> <20101213175010.GD7182@redhat.com> <1292263244.2857.120.camel@x201> <20101213185437.GB9554@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 11:59:16 -0700 Message-ID: <1292266756.2857.122.camel@x201> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] rtl8139: IO memory is not part of vmstate List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, quintela@redhat.com 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 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 even without hotplug (example 2 > > and example 3 after the reboot). That hack limits the damage, but still > > leaves a latent bug for reboot and doesn't address the non-hotplug > > scenarios. So, I don't think it's worthwhile to pursue, and we > > shouldn't pretend we can use it to avoid bumping the version_id. > > Thanks, > > > > Alex > > I guess when we bump it we tell users: migration is completely > borken to the old version, don't even try it. > > Is there a way for libvirt to discover such incompatibilities > and avoid the migration? I don't know if libvirt has a way to query this in advance. If a migration is attempted, the target will report: savevm: unsupported version 5 for '0000:00:03.0/rtl8139' v4 And the source will continue running. We waste plenty of bits getting to that point, but hopefully libvirt understands that it failed. Thanks, Alex