From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:53271) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QzW6P-0000d5-Ai for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2011 11:56:22 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QzW6M-0004su-Qx for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2011 11:56:21 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:29663) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QzW6M-0004sW-Hh for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 02 Sep 2011 11:56:18 -0400 Message-ID: <4E60FD4B.2010103@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 17:59:07 +0200 From: Kevin Wolf MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1312376904-16115-1-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com> <1312376904-16115-27-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com> <4E60CA0D.8030205@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 26/45] ide/atapi: Preserve tray state on migration List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Markus Armbruster Cc: stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com, quintela@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, lcapitulino@redhat.com, hare@suse.de, amit.shah@redhat.com, Paolo Bonzini , hch@lst.de Am 02.09.2011 17:20, schrieb Markus Armbruster: > Kevin Wolf writes: > >> Am 03.08.2011 15:08, schrieb Markus Armbruster: >>> Use a subsection, so that migration to older version still works, >>> provided the tray is closed and unlocked. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster >> >> Ah, here is the migration part. The state wasn't migrated before, so not >> doing it in patch 10 doesn't break anything. I would still prefer to add >> migration in the same patch that adds the fields. >> >> You could just move the subsection itself and keep the post_load part >> here if it doesn't fit naturally in one of the other patches of the series. > > I don't get this part, I'm afraid. I was afraid that you can't merge all of this patch into patch 10 because the post_load functions depends on later patches. So I suggested that you just add the subsection definition itself to patch 10 and keep the addition of post_load as patch 26. Kevin