From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59514) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VW5ez-000430-RJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 10:31:54 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VW5er-0001mR-F5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 10:31:45 -0400 Received: from mail-qc0-x234.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400d:c01::234]:34430) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VW5er-0001mL-9v for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 10:31:37 -0400 Received: by mail-qc0-f180.google.com with SMTP id p19so6004420qcv.39 for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 07:31:36 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <525D51C3.2050201@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 16:31:31 +0200 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1381762577-12526-1-git-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <1381762577-12526-43-git-send-email-mst@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <1381762577-12526-43-git-send-email-mst@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 42/43] piix4: add acpi pci hotplug support List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: peter.maydell@linaro.org, marcel.a@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kraxel@redhat.com, Anthony Liguori , imammedo@redhat.com Il 14/10/2013 17:01, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto: > - VMSTATE_STRUCT(pci0_status, PIIX4PMState, 2, vmstate_pci_status, > - struct pci_status), > + VMSTATE_STRUCT_TEST(pci0_status, PIIX4PMState, > + vmstate_test_no_use_acpi_pci_hotplug, > + 2, vmstate_pci_status, > + struct pci_status), There's no reason to remove this from the stream when a new machine type is in use. You'll just send out zeroes. > + VMSTATE_PCI_HOTPLUG(acpi_pci_hotplug, PIIX4PMState, > + vmstate_test_use_acpi_pci_hotplug), This works, but it is a bit different from other cases that are already present, which use a subsection. It is a bit ugly because it looks like a version-1 field, but in fact it is not version 1. I'll let other people decide whether it's acceptable or not, but I'm leaning towards asking you to use a subsection. Paolo