From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:53686)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1SzPE4-0007b4-5T
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 09 Aug 2012 05:40:21 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1SzPE1-00068K-1i
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 09 Aug 2012 05:40:20 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:8931)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1SzPE0-00068G-QR
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 09 Aug 2012 05:40:16 -0400
Message-ID: <5023857C.20801@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 11:40:12 +0200
From: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20120807160106.GA2411@redhat.com> <50213EA5.6080303@suse.de>
In-Reply-To: <50213EA5.6080303@suse.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] ahci live migration
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: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andreas_F=E4rber?= <afaerber@suse.de>
Cc: aliguori@us.ibm.com, mst@redhat.com, armbru@redhat.com, Jason Baron <jbaron@redhat.com>, agraf@suse.de, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kraxel@redhat.com

Am 07.08.2012 18:13, schrieb Andreas F=E4rber:
> Hi Jason,
>=20
> Am 07.08.2012 18:01, schrieb Jason Baron:
>> Hi,
>>
>> vmstate_ahci has its 'unmigratable' bit set. Gerd suggested that there=
 was work
>> in this area. Anybody know the status on it?
>=20
> That was me working on it. I have a branch corresponding to an RFC I
> sent around Christmas - issue being how to model the variable number of
> ports in VMSD - that I need to update to the latest suggestion by Igor.
>=20
> Jason/Kevin, should I prioritize that for 1.2? Or is that a -next topic=
?

Unless someone tries hard to convince me otherwise, I'd default to -next.

Kevin