From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=33595 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PSogb-0007Ky-LH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 05:34:18 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PSoga-0003UD-K9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 05:34:17 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:6884) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PSoga-0003Tr-Bf for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 05:34:16 -0500 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oBFA0l0j011305 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 05:00:47 -0500 Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 12:00:24 +0200 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20101215100024.GC28825@redhat.com> References: <1292263244.2857.120.camel@x201> <20101213185437.GB9554@redhat.com> <1292266756.2857.122.camel@x201> <20101213190619.GD9554@redhat.com> <1292267708.2857.123.camel@x201> <20101214044342.GE9554@redhat.com> <1292302848.2857.148.camel@x201> <20101214123209.GC19950@redhat.com> <1292341315.2857.175.camel@x201> <4D07947B.80702@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4D07947B.80702@redhat.com> 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: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Alex Williamson , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, quintela@redhat.com On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 04:59:55PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 12/14/2010 04:41 PM, Alex Williamson wrote: > >> Maybe in this particular case the advantage is minimal. > >> But it seems easier to stick to a rule of no more version > >> bumps than argue about each case. > > > >Do we have such a rule? If we have a subsection who's needed function > >is return 1, I think that's a good indication that it's not appropriate > >for a subsection and the end result is equivalent to bumping the main > >driver vmstate version. It's convoluted to try to hide a one-way > >upgrade in a subsection. Thanks, > > Indeed, subsections are for data that is rarely needed so that > there's some chance (sometimes ~100%) of migration working > seemlessly. If a subsection arrives that qemu does not know about, won't migratin fail? > In this case it's either > no-bump-and-live-with-the-consequences, or changing the version id. > > Paolo This was discussed to death already. version ids have the problem that they don't play nicely with downstreams. -- MST