From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:46005) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rvcc4-00028T-JK for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:37:13 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rvcc2-0005zk-5y for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:37:12 -0500 Received: from mail-pw0-f45.google.com ([209.85.160.45]:60702) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rvcc2-0005zT-1H for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:37:10 -0500 Received: by pbbro12 with SMTP id ro12so2182029pbb.4 for ; Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:37:08 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F344A90.6020705@codemonkey.ws> Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:37:04 -0600 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87ehuhrpel.fsf@elfo.elfo> <4F272A92.2010609@suse.de> <4F272D8C.8020608@codemonkey.ws> <4F27E98E.2080501@suse.de> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call agenda for tuesday 31 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: quintela@redhat.com, Mitsyanko Igor , =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= , KVM devel mailing list , Developers qemu-devel On 02/09/2012 04:23 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > Ping re the VMState and variable sized arrays issue. I don't > see any consensus in this discussion for a different approach, > so should we just commit Mitsyanko's patchset? I don't know if I mentioned this, but do we really need variable sizes? Can we just use a fixed size (pre-allocated) array and then use a VMSTATE_SUB_ARRAY? If it's truly variable size with no upper bound, then that's actually a security problem since it implies a guest can do unbounded memory allocation. Regards, Anthony Liguori > > - PMM > > On 31 January 2012 13:15, Andreas Färber wrote: >> Am 31.01.2012 00:53, schrieb Anthony Liguori: >>> On 01/30/2012 05:41 PM, Andreas Färber wrote: >>>> Am 30.01.2012 19:55, schrieb Juan Quintela: >>>>> Please send in any agenda items you are interested in covering. >> >>>> VMState: >>>> Anthony specifically said that VMState were not affected by QOM and that >>>> patches should not be deferred until the merge. Yet there's no review >>>> and/or decision-making for a month now. Ping^2 for AHCI+SDHC. >>> >>> Do you have pointers (to pending VMState patches)? >> >> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/137732/ (PATCH v4) >> >> It's basically about how to deal with variable-sized arrays. (Alex >> mentioned it on one call around November.) I found ways to deal with >> subsets of arrays embedded within the struct and variable-sized list of >> pointers to structs but no solution for a malloc()'ed array of structs. >> Maybe I'm just too stupid to see. Anyway, no one commented since Xmas. >> >> Igor posted (and refined for v2) a patch with a callback-based approach >> that I find promising. From my view, unofficially Juan is the VMState >> guy, he's been cc'ed. Are we lacking an official maintainer that cares? >> Or is Juan the official, undocumented maintainer but simply busy? >> >> SUSE's interest is making AHCI migratable, and my VMState workaround for >> that is simply ugly: >> >> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/133066/ (RFC) >> >> Therefore I'm waiting for some resolution. >> >> Regards, >> Andreas >