From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Nv0ql-0002C0-0Z for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 00:08:47 -0400 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=52662 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Nv0qi-00029N-7Y for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 00:08:46 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nv0qg-0003I0-Nk for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 00:08:43 -0400 Received: from mail2.shareable.org ([80.68.89.115]:53622) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nv0qg-0003Ht-GP for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 00:08:42 -0400 Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 04:08:42 +0000 From: Jamie Lokier Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 02/15] virtio-serial: save/load: Ensure nr_ports on src and dest are same. Message-ID: <20100326040842.GV19308@shareable.org> References: <1269442173-18421-1-git-send-email-amit.shah@redhat.com> <1269442173-18421-2-git-send-email-amit.shah@redhat.com> <1269442173-18421-3-git-send-email-amit.shah@redhat.com> <20100326010923.GD19308@shareable.org> <20100326020301.GG8111@amit-x200.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100326020301.GG8111@amit-x200.redhat.com> List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Amit Shah Cc: qemu list , Juan Quintela , Gerd Hoffmann , "Michael S. Tsirkin" Amit Shah wrote: > On (Fri) Mar 26 2010 [01:09:23], Jamie Lokier wrote: > > Amit Shah wrote: > > > The number of ports on the source as well as the destination machines > > > should match. If they don't, it means some ports that got hotplugged on > > > the source aren't instantiated on the destination. Or that ports that > > > were hot-unplugged on the source are created on the destination. > > > > Surely the set of guest-visible ids must match exactly and be checked > > (maybe mapped, if they were given in a different order), in which case > > counting the number of ports looks redundant. > > > > I.e. is this check hiding the omission of the proper one? > > Yes, That's added in a later patch (5). That patch changes the guest > abi, so it's separate. > > Also, patch 3 checks if all the ports on the src are present on the > dest. Great, thanks :-) -- Jamie