From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:35408)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1Qrtwf-0001k5-Iy
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 11:46:51 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1Qrtwe-00070J-1F
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 11:46:49 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:26161)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1Qrtwd-0006zx-Pd
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 11:46:48 -0400
Message-ID: <4E454AE3.4000508@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 17:46:43 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1313143181-7921-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>	<1313143181-7921-4-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
	<4E454297.4090106@codemonkey.ws> <4E4543CE.8050402@codemonkey.ws>
In-Reply-To: <4E4543CE.8050402@codemonkey.ws>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 3/4] savevm: define new unambiguous
 migration format
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 08/12/2011 05:16 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>
>> Because of the change we made for 0.15, this is no longer strictly
>> needed. It only matters if we add a subsection to a structure, right?

Yes.  We can also check the current migration format in the "needed" 
function for such subsections, if necessary.  This is what I plan to do 
for the floppy subsection, skipping it for old machine types that do not 
use the new migration format.

> I'm definitely not saying we shouldn't do this BTW.  But trying to
> understand whether we can position this as a strictly optional feature
> (iow, a capability) or whether this requires a hard break in the
> migration protocol.

This what? :)  Adding a subsection to a structure, or using the new 
migration format?  If you mean using the new format only when you have 
subsections in a structure, then you'll need quite a bit of new code to 
try all VMState handlers and see if they'll need a subsection.  I don't 
think it's worth it, also because we all hope this is a temporary 
solution until we have a serious format (e.g. ASN-1).

Paolo