From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Np1P3-000237-RQ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:31:25 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=55953 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Np1P2-00022B-PU
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:31:24 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim
	4.60) (envelope-from <amit.shah@redhat.com>) id 1Np1P1-0003PV-71
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:31:24 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:53031)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <amit.shah@redhat.com>) id 1Np1P0-0003PP-RD
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:31:23 -0500
Received: from int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com
	(int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.18])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o29FVLkM001922
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK)
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 10:31:21 -0500
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 20:59:58 +0530
From: Amit Shah <amit.shah@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20100309152958.GC21684@amit-x200.redhat.com>
References: <m3k4tl4ovy.fsf@trasno.mitica>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <m3k4tl4ovy.fsf@trasno.mitica>
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: virtio-serial NULL deference
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: Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On (Tue) Mar 09 2010 [14:15:45], Juan Quintela wrote:
> 
> Hi Amit

Hey Juan,

> Checking migration, I just found this problem:
> 
> I don't know what to put there.  a return -EINVAL or continue?
> Looking more at the code, I am not sure what checks:
> 
> a- that bus->max_nr_ports is the same in both sides (or at least bigger
>    on migration destination)

Yes, we should check for this.

> b- We sent the value of config.nr_ports, but ... we assign it back on
>    destination, instead of checking that they are the same.

This is done to accomodate for hot-plug/unplug. nr_ports will go up /
down after those operations. (Current implementation only increases this
value, on hotplug operations. On hot-unplug, this value is not
decremented.)

> c- port->id is taken from nr_ports again, and nothing checks that ports
>    appear in the same order in source and destination.

Actually, this has me thinking about how would this work:
- start vm with 3 ports
- hotplug 2 more ports
- migrate

Would the destination have 5 ports, or would it have 3? I thought qdev
would take care of this scenario (hotplug). I don't think I've tested
this, so I'll do this soon, but in case anyone knows the answer, please
let me know.

[snipped patch that's necessary in case qdev doesn't handle this kind of
hotplug]

		Amit
-- 
http://log.amitshah.net/