From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57100) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZM8Xm-0004aX-L6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 03 Aug 2015 01:44:15 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZM8Xh-0005jj-PZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 03 Aug 2015 01:44:14 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:55519) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZM8Xh-0005jW-KG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 03 Aug 2015 01:44:09 -0400 Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 11:14:02 +0530 From: Amit Shah Message-ID: <20150803054402.GA28564@grmbl.mre> References: <1438098885-4339-1-git-send-email-anthony.perard@citrix.com> <20150729175416.GN1379@perard.uk.xensource.com> <87d1z9q4zu.fsf@neno.neno> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH for-2.4 0/3] Migration regressions with Xen. List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Stefano Stabellini Cc: Juan Quintela , QEMU-devel , Xen Devel , Stefano Stabellini , Anthony PERARD , "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" On (Fri) 31 Jul 2015 [10:59:47], Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Thu, 30 Jul 2015, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > On Thu, 30 Jul 2015, Juan Quintela wrote: > > > Anthony PERARD wrote: > > > > This is a critical issue for Xen as migration either with the same version > > > > of QEMU, or from a previous version of QEMU is broken. > > > > > > > > Any suggestion on how to move forward? > > > > > > Will send a pull requset tomorrow. > > > > > > Thinking about creating a single function that is called for all needed > > > places, just to avoid this problem in the future. > > > > > > > Hi Juan, > > > > thanks for looking into this! > > Do you have patches already we can look at and help you test to make > > sure they fix the issue? > > Any updates? That bigger overhaul would be 2.5 stuff now. The only thing that tripped here was the RFC tag in the subject line. Also, I think Dave had a comment about this but I think that was made on IRC. Dave, do you see a problem with this series? Thanks, Amit