From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60215) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UmsGm-00039g-UV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 17:07:53 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UmsGl-0003zT-Bd for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 17:07:52 -0400 Sender: fluxion Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 16:07:28 -0500 From: mdroth Message-ID: <20130612210728.GH12585@vm> References: <1369175577-18130-1-git-send-email-mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130612201151.GF12585@vm> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] wdt_i6300esb: fix vmstate versioning List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: Anthony Liguori , quintela@redhat.com, qemu-trivial@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-stable@nongnu.org, nick@bytemark.co.uk On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 09:42:14PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 12 June 2013 21:11, mdroth wrote: > > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 05:32:57PM -0500, Michael Roth wrote: > >> When this VMSD was introduced it's version fields were set to > >> sizeof(I6300State), making them essentially random from build to build, > >> version to version. > >> > >> To fix this, we lock in a high version id and low minimum version id to > >> support old->new migration from all prior versions of this device's > >> state. This should work since the device state has not changed since > >> its introduction. > >> > >> The potentially breaks migration from 1.5+ to 1.5, but since the > >> versioning was essentially random prior to this patch, new->old > >> migration was not consistently functional to begin with. > >> > >> Reported-by: Nicholas Thomas > >> Suggested-by: Peter Maydell > >> Cc: qemu-stable@nongnu.org > >> Signed-off-by: Michael Roth > > > > CC'ing qemu-trivial. Looking to get this in for 1.5.1 > > This is a good patch but it definitely doesn't seem like > -trivial material to me. -trivial isn't "way to get patches > in that would otherwise fall through the cracks" :-) I honestly thought it was trivial once all the considerations were documented, but reading through it all again makes my head hurt a bit so you're probably right. Anthony, Juan? > > thanks > -- PMM >