From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34796) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d0Qvv-0007bN-Nz for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 07:04:32 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d0Qvq-0006X9-Nu for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 07:04:31 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:40738) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d0Qvq-0006Wt-If for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Apr 2017 07:04:26 -0400 Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 12:04:21 +0100 From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" Message-ID: <20170418110421.GE2205@work-vm> References: <20170405190024.27581-1-dgilbert@redhat.com> <20170405190024.27581-2-dgilbert@redhat.com> <20170413150121.GW32646@thinpad.lan.raisama.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170413150121.GW32646@thinpad.lan.raisama.net> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/3] migration/i386: Remove old non-softfloat 64bit FP support List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eduardo Habkost Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, rth@twiddle.net, quintela@redhat.com * Eduardo Habkost (ehabkost@redhat.com) wrote: > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 08:00:22PM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git) wrote: > > From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" > > > > Long long ago, we used to support storing the x86 FP registers in > > a 64bit format. > > > > Then c31da136a0bf8caad70c348f5ffc283206e9c7fc in v0.14-rc0 removed > > the last support for writing that in the migration format. > > Even before that, it was only used if you had softfloat disabled > > (i.e. !USE_X86LDOUBLE) so in practice use of it in even earlier > > qemu is unlikely for most users. > > > > Kill it off, it's complicated, and possibly broken. > > > > Signed-off-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert > > I love the sound of obsolete code being deleted... > > Acked-by: Eduardo Habkost > > But: > > [...] > > @@ -356,6 +256,10 @@ static int cpu_post_load(void *opaque, int version_id) > > return -EINVAL; > > } > > > > + if (env->fpregs_format_vmstate) { > > + error_report("Unsupported old non-softfloat CPU state"); > > + return -EINVAL; > > + } > > Is this equivalent to using VMSTATE_UINT16_EQUAL, but with a > better and more verbose error message? I think it probably is, yes. Dave > > /* > > * Real mode guest segments register DPL should be zero. > > * Older KVM version were setting it wrongly. > > @@ -943,7 +847,8 @@ VMStateDescription vmstate_x86_cpu = { > > VMSTATE_UINT16(env.fpus_vmstate, X86CPU), > > VMSTATE_UINT16(env.fptag_vmstate, X86CPU), > > VMSTATE_UINT16(env.fpregs_format_vmstate, X86CPU), > > - VMSTATE_FP_REGS(env.fpregs, X86CPU, 8), > > + > > + VMSTATE_STRUCT_ARRAY(env.fpregs, X86CPU, 8, 0, vmstate_fpreg, FPReg), > > > > VMSTATE_SEGMENT_ARRAY(env.segs, X86CPU, 6), > > VMSTATE_SEGMENT(env.ldt, X86CPU), > > -- > > 2.9.3 > > > > -- > Eduardo -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@redhat.com / Manchester, UK