From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:39492) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tw9EX-0005VZ-0q for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Jan 2013 05:31:43 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tw9EP-0000Fj-Vx for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Jan 2013 05:31:36 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:36102) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tw9EP-0000FW-PR for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Jan 2013 05:31:29 -0500 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r0IAVTjX004205 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2013 05:31:29 -0500 Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 11:28:57 +0100 From: Stefan Hajnoczi Message-ID: <20130118102857.GB20153@stefanha-thinkpad.hitronhub.home> References: <1358416915-4103-1-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1358416915-4103-1-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 0/3] AHCI migration List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Kevin Wolf Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, quintela@redhat.com On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:01:52AM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Let's get Jason's patches merged while they still apply. I addressed the review > comments (mostly my own) that came up during the v3 review, otherwise this is > unchanged. > > Please note that in my tests it didn't work entirely reliably and I saw guest > lockups and kernel crashes in like one of ten cases. I confirmed that the same > kind of bugs occurs with v3 of the series, so my changes are likely innocent. > Someone will have to debug this some more, but what I did took about the time > that I'm willing to spend on it right now. It makes sense to merge these patches to avoid bitrot, but should we keep unmigratable = 1 so that users aren't led to believe migration works? Developers willing to tackle the remaining problem can always comment out the unmigratable flag during testing. But I think users shouldn't be exposed to something unreliable. Stefan