Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/2] pcie: drop version_id field for live migration

[Jason Baron <jbaron@redhat.com>]

On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 11:44:54AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 01:51:10PM -0400, Jason Baron wrote:
> > While testing q35 live migration, I found that the migration would abort with
> > the following error: "Unknown savevm section type 76".
> > 
> > The error is due to this check failing in 'vmstate_load_state()':
> > 
> >     while(field->name) {
> >         if ((field->field_exists &&
> >              field->field_exists(opaque, version_id)) ||
> >             (!field->field_exists &&
> >              field->version_id <= version_id)) {
> > 
> > The VMSTATE_PCIE_DEVICE() currently has a 'version_id' set to 2. However,
> > 'version_id' in the above check is 1. And thus we fail to load the pcie device
> > field. Further the code returns to 'qemu_loadvm_state()' which produces the
> > error that I saw.
> > 
> > I'm proposing to fix this by simply dropping the 'version_id' field from
> > VMSTATE_PCIE_DEVICE(). VMSTATE_PCI_DEVICE() defines no such field and further
> > the vmstate_pcie_device that VMSTATE_PCI_DEVICE() refers to is already
> > versioned. Thus, any versioning issues could be detected at the vmsd level.
> > 
> > Taking a step back, I think that the 'field->version_id' should be compared
> > against a saved version number for the field not the 'version_id'. Futhermore,
> > once vmstate_load_state() is called recursively on another vmsd, the check of:
> > 
> >     if (version_id > vmsd->version_id) {
> >         return -EINVAL;
> >     }
> > 
> > Will never fail since version_id is always equal to vmsd->version_id. So I'm
> > wondering why we aren't storing the vmsd version id of the source in the
> > migration stream?
> > 
> > This patch also renames the 'name' field of vmstate_pcie_device from:
> > PCIDevice -> PCIEDevice to differentiate it from vmstate_pci_device.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jason Baron <jbaron@redhat.com>
> 
> I have this queued to apply already - this is just a repost
> or did I miss something?
> 

just a repost...but now we have Juan's ack :)