Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call agenda for October 11th

[Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>]

On 10/11/2011 08:47 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 10/11/2011 03:27 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>> 5) Implement subsections through the wire as top-level sections (as
>>> originally intended).  Keep existing subsections with (1).
>>
>>
>> That was (3).
>>
>
> Yes, sorry.
>
>>> btw, it's reasonable to require that backwards migration is only to a
>>> fully updated stable release, so we can do 5) too, or backport 1).
>>
>> But given the choice of a nasty silent failure to an
>> not-quite-up-to-date stable release or failing migration to a fully
>> up-to-date stable release, I think it's better that we err on the side
>> of caution.
>
> We're erring on the side of no migration, it seems.
>
>> Not being able to migrate because of a recoverable failure is
>> annoying.  Having a silent failure that possible results in corruption
>> is unacceptable.
>
> What I'm trying to avoid is making choices today that close the door on
> better fixes in the future.

I think Juan made a really good point in his earlier post.  We need to focus on 
better testing for migration.  With a solid migration torture test, we can 
probably eliminate much of the problems we're facing today.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

>