From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=44622 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PT9KD-0008Ng-GT for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Dec 2010 03:36:34 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PT9KC-0002XT-IW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Dec 2010 03:36:33 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:45002) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PT9KC-0002XM-A1 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Dec 2010 03:36:32 -0500 Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 10:36:08 +0200 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] PCI: Bus number from the bridge, not the device Message-ID: <20101216083608.GA18984@redhat.com> References: <1292270663.2857.129.camel@x201> <20101214044658.GF9554@redhat.com> <1292302161.2857.144.camel@x201> <20101214045715.GG9554@redhat.com> <1292303064.2857.151.camel@x201> <20101214122630.GB19950@redhat.com> <1292351693.2862.9.camel@x201> <20101215095618.GB28825@redhat.com> <1292426869.2862.19.camel@x201> <20101216070816.GH7962@valinux.co.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101216070816.GH7962@valinux.co.jp> List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Isaku Yamahata Cc: Alex Williamson , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 04:08:16PM +0900, Isaku Yamahata wrote: > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 08:27:49AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > > On Wed, 2010-12-15 at 11:56 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 11:34:53AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2010-12-14 at 14:26 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 10:04:24PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I've only ever seen config[PCI_SECONDARY_BUS] be non-zero for an > > > > > > assigned device, so I'm pretty sure we're not going to hurt migration, > > > > > > but the code is clearly wrong and I'd like to make sure we don't trip on > > > > > > a migration failure for a minor device config space change. > > > > > > > > > > Which reminds me: maybe just mark nested bridges as non-migrateable > > > > > for now? Care writing such a patch? > > > > > > > > Hmm, this is trickier than it sounds. > > > > > > Hmm, since 0 is put in the path instead of the bridge number, > > > will the correct bridge be restored? > > > > > > > We're really only broken wrt > > > > migration if a device under a bridge calls qemu_ram_alloc. > > > > > > I guess there's more broken-ness. What exactly breaks qemu_ram_alloc? > > > > You're right, it's more broken than that. Anything that calls > > get_dev_path is broken for migration of bridges since the path is > > determined before the guest updates bus numbers. That includes > > qemu_ram_alloc and vmstate. I was only looking at the qemu_ram_alloc > > side. So perhaps the right answer, for the moment, is to block > > migration if there's a p2p bridge. > > Eww. That's bad. Anyway, I agree to disable it for the moment. Patch? > Let's fix it after 0.14 release. > -- > yamahata