From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45311) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XByq9-00044y-2s for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 00:16:47 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XByq2-0004ek-S9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 00:16:41 -0400 Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]:57082) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XByq2-0004c8-Ll for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 00:16:34 -0400 Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 04:16:30 +0000 From: Serge Hallyn Message-ID: <20140729041630.GN464@ubuntumail> References: <1406054580-16763-1-git-send-email-alex@alex.org.uk> <7DADE58E-0CA0-4B97-9567-AAF5ECBC47AA@alex.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7DADE58E-0CA0-4B97-9567-AAF5ECBC47AA@alex.org.uk> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] [RFC] Add machine type pc-1.0-qemu-kvm for live migrate compatibility with qemu-kvm List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Alex Bligh Cc: Ryan Harper , Serge Hallyn , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Libvirt , "quintela@redhat.com" , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" , Alexander Graf , Cole Robinson , Amit Shah , Paolo Bonzini , Bruce Rogers , Andreas =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4rber?= Quoting Alex Bligh (alex@alex.org.uk): > > On 22 Jul 2014, at 19:43, Alex Bligh wrote: > > > Testing has been light to date (i.e. > > can I migrate it inbound with -S without anything complaining). thanks, Alex! > > I've given this quite a bit more testing today. > > It works fine qemu-kvm 1.0 -> qemu-2.0+patch (cirrus vga) > It works fine qemu-2.0+patch -> qemu-2.0+patch (cirrus vga) > It doesn't (yet) work qemu-2.0+patch -> qemu-kvm 1.0 (cirrus vga). > > The reason for this is (at least) that I need to emulate the > broken versioning of the mc146818rtc timer section, as writing > it correctly confuses qemu-kvm 1.0. Therefore please don't bother > testing migration back to 1.0 yet. I don't think that is in any way a problem. Is migrating to older versions ever actually expected to work? In either case I don't think for this particular case it's a problem. (The "how to handle this in libvirt" question is more interesting) -serge