From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51782) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a46jA-0002m1-CV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2015 07:41:45 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a46j7-0007FS-6j for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2015 07:41:44 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:46120) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a46j7-0007FO-18 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2015 07:41:41 -0500 Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 14:41:36 +0200 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20151202144026-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> References: <20151201111108.6dd85381.cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> <20151201131040.046ab170.cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> <20151201152153.1bb1f58f.cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> <565E8781.5060700@redhat.com> <20151202111128.03f4f46d.cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151202111128.03f4f46d.cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [2.5 issue] virtio-1 in virtio-net and old vhost List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Cornelia Huck Cc: Christian Borntraeger , Jason Wang , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 11:11:28AM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 13:54:09 +0800 > Jason Wang wrote: > > > I wonder instead of rolling back in post_plugged(), maybe we could just > > delay the region setups to post_plugged(). > > If this is the saner thing to do for pci, sure. > > > Or just call transport > > specific device_plugged() after get_features() call in > > virtio_bus_device_plugged(). > > The problem is that the VERSION_1 bit is only added in the > ->device_plugged() callbacks by the transport, so ->get_features() can > only be called after that. We have a dependency in both directions :( > > > And I'm not sure we need to handle > > migration compatibility in this case. > > The thing we would need to care about is basically the host kernel on > the target supporting less than the host kernel on the source. This is a fundamental problem, we have it with other features like transport offloads. We don't have a solution for this now. kvm has the same issue. > Do we > care about that in other contexts right now?