From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40410) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xntns-0005Vr-3G for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 13:35:10 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xntnl-0005Ln-Ux for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 13:35:04 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:44937) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xntnl-0005Lh-NQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 13:34:57 -0500 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id sAAIYuWS001322 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 13:34:57 -0500 Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 20:34:54 +0200 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20141110183454.GA17883@redhat.com> References: <1415636450-18674-1-git-send-email-imammedo@redhat.com> <5460F87C.6050209@redhat.com> <20141110184848.6842474e@nial.usersys.redhat.com> <5460FC4E.6000501@redhat.com> <20141110181715.GA17646@redhat.com> <54610361.4090502@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <54610361.4090502@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH for-2.2] pc: acpi: mark all possible CPUs as enabled in SRAT List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Igor Mammedov , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 07:26:41PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 10/11/2014 19:17, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > No, I mean can you do it also for pc-2.1 and earlier? Or should it be > > > only for the last machine type? > > > > I don't see why it should, it can't break migration. > > > > It changes the contents of the SRAT. There is a possibility that it > triggers bugs in previously working guests. > > Paolo Absolutely but that's true for any bugfix. We don't do compatiblity without a good reason. Or do you mean that you consider this too high a risk for 2.2? -- MST