From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MljOm-00021N-6d for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 Sep 2009 09:09:16 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MljOh-0001wH-57 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 Sep 2009 09:09:15 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=42639 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MljOg-0001wB-Qn for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 Sep 2009 09:09:10 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:17322) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MljOg-0006SD-B6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 Sep 2009 09:09:10 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:07:20 +0300 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20090910130720.GA32601@redhat.com> References: <4AA7BEA7.6080906@codemonkey.ws> <87my53lhd1.fsf@pike.pond.sub.org> <4AA85E1F.6000902@codemonkey.ws> <20090910120802.GA24530@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: The State of the SaveVM format List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Juan Quintela Cc: Markus Armbruster , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 02:55:07PM +0200, Juan Quintela wrote: > "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 09:02:07PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >>> If we complicate vmstate now to shoehorn pre-vmstate > >>> formats into vmstate, that ancient history will continue to haunt us. > >>> Complicating a program is far easier than the other direction. > >>> > >> > >> Let's take it one step at a time. There is an awful lot of areas where > >> we can support older versions without adding complications. Let's > >> approach the complicated ones one at a time. > > > > I'm not sure I understand this talk about "pre-vmstate formats". > > I thought vmstate patches were, at least for the most part, trying > > to reimplement existing format with the table-driver design? > > > > If that's not so and we are changing the format now, is it too late to > > consider some standard serialization format rather than rolling our own? > > We are using previous format. At some point we should move to other > format. When/what is still not decided. Each time at its time. Ah, that's what I thought. > Once > we have everything using vmstate, we have a declarative description of > the state. Going for tables with names + types to any format is just an > exercise of walking the tables and writing a pretty-printer and a parser. > > Later, Juan. Good point. But if we do intend to switch formats because of vmstate and separately switch to a standard format, it might be easier on users if we do a single switch, in the same release cycle. -- MST