From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:38429) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QofVy-0000L1-IE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 03 Aug 2011 13:45:55 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QofVx-0008A1-OY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 03 Aug 2011 13:45:54 -0400 Received: from mail-pz0-f42.google.com ([209.85.210.42]:37008) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QofVx-00089x-Ff for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 03 Aug 2011 13:45:53 -0400 Received: by pzk37 with SMTP id 37so469683pzk.29 for ; Wed, 03 Aug 2011 10:45:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E39894A.3060000@codemonkey.ws> Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 12:45:46 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1312330727-23688-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com> <4E390810.2040809@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4E390810.2040809@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] migration: remove subsections in fdc and rtl8139 and bump versions (v2) List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Kevin Wolf Cc: Paolo Bonzini , Anthony Liguori , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Juan Quintela On 08/03/2011 03:34 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 03.08.2011 02:18, schrieb Anthony Liguori: >> As Paolo points out, the migration protocol is ambiguous when using subsections >> today. That means that even if we preserve subsections and change the protocol >> accordingly, the old protocol w/subsections is still ambiguous. >> >> Remove subsection usage and bump any device using subsections. This effectively >> eliminates the amiguouity and allows for a clean transition to a new protocol >> with unambiguous subsections. >> >> Signed-off-by: Anthony Liguori >> -- >> v1 -> v2 >> - Also remove IDE subsections (spotted by Juan Quintela) > > Please remove migration_compat_status from BMDMAState and the respective > VMState, there's no reason for it any more when you increase the version > number. Thanks for the confirmation. I suspected that but I figured that a more conservative approach was safer. Regards, Anthony Liguori > > Kevin >