From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57002) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dVSHe-0004lI-Qp for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 20:47:11 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dVSHb-0006JM-PV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 20:47:10 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:51790) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dVSHb-0006In-J9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 20:47:07 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 03:47:01 +0300 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20170713034617-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <1499847753-8513-1-git-send-email-thuth@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3] hw/i386: Deprecate the machines pc-0.10 to pc-1.2 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Laszlo Ersek Cc: Thomas Huth , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Paolo Bonzini , Eduardo Habkost , Marcel Apfelbaum , Igor Mammedov , Gerd Hoffmann , Richard Henderson On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 02:30:06AM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > On 07/12/17 10:22, Thomas Huth wrote: > > We don't want to carry along old machine types forever. If we are able to > > remove the pc machines up to 0.13 one day for example, this would allow > > us to eventually kill the code for rombar=0 (i.e. where QEMU copies ROM > > BARs directly to low memory). Everything up to pc-1.2 is also known to > > have issues with migration. So let's start with a deprecation message > > for the old machine types so that the (hopefully) few users of these old > > systems start switching over to newer machine types instead. > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth > > --- > > Note: Even if we mark all these old machines as deprecated, this ofcourse > > doesn't mean that we also have to remove them all at once later when we > > decide to finally really remove some. We could then also start by removing > > 0.10 and 0.11 only, for example (since there should really be no users left > > for these), or only up to 0.13 (to be able to kill rombar=0). > > On a tangent: "rombar=0" shouldn't be killed before the libvirt domain > XML regains the ability to say, "don't load any oprom for this device". > Please see . > > (Please note that it is not lost on me that rombar=0 is a poor > substitute for romfile='', but currently rombar=0 is the only fallback > through libvirt. See the BZ pls.) > > Thanks > Laszlo rombar=0 would start meaning "no ROM", not "no BAR but still add a rom".