From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NKfTY-0007bJ-Of
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:02:36 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NKfTU-0007Y6-5I
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:02:36 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=53307 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NKfTT-0007Xy-Uk
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:02:32 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:9055)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1NKfTT-0005ys-NJ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:02:31 -0500
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 23:59:42 +0200
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Proper support for PCI-based option rom loading (was Re:
	[Qemu-devel] Re: qdev property bug?)
Message-ID: <20091215215942.GJ26712@redhat.com>
References: <20091214203603.GJ6150@redhat.com> <4B26A3B2.2030006@codemonkey.ws>
	<20091214205141.GC6398@redhat.com>
	<4B26F678.4010603@codemonkey.ws> <4B27541F.9020603@redhat.com>
	<4B27E1C2.5090506@codemonkey.ws>
	<20091215211900.GG26712@redhat.com>
	<4B280374.5010604@codemonkey.ws>
	<20091215215244.GI26712@redhat.com>
	<4B28064A.1070501@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4B28064A.1070501@codemonkey.ws>
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: glommer@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>, Kevin O'Connor <kevin@koconnor.net>, Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>, Sebastian Herbszt <herbszt@gmx.de>

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 03:57:30PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> Heh, this is going to be really broken with my patches :-)
>>>
>>> We're during qemu_ram_alloc() and we currently don't have a means to  
>>> associate ram with anything meaningful.  This means that if you hot 
>>> plug  on two ends in different orders (even with fixed slots), the 
>>> returned  qemu_ram_alloc() pointers will be different for the same 
>>> device.  This  means when you did the live migration of the rom 
>>> contents, you'd get the  wrong roms in the wrong places.
>>>
>>> I think we need to improve how we do qemu_ram_alloc() such that we 
>>> can  associate some meaningful context with each allocated chunk that 
>>> we can  migrate with the chunk of ram.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Anthony Liguori
>>>     
>>
>> Hmm. You think all this is 0.12 material?
>>   
> I think it's stable-0.12 material because it's badly broken right now  

I thought the rule was no guest visible changes in stable series?

> but it's clearly not a candidate for 0.12.0 as it still doesn't work  
> reliably.
>
> I'm going to pull in Gerd's fix for 0.12.0.
>
> Regards,
>
> Anthony Liguori