From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50036) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WVNKV-000450-FG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Apr 2014 11:44:01 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WVNKP-0000eH-9h for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Apr 2014 11:43:55 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:9575) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WVNKP-0000dv-0f for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Apr 2014 11:43:49 -0400 Message-ID: <533C300C.9070202@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2014 17:43:08 +0200 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1396452782-21473-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH for-2.0] target-i386: reorder fields in cpu/msr_hyperv_hypercall subsection List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: QEMU Developers , "Michael S. Tsirkin" Il 02/04/2014 17:42, Peter Maydell ha scritto: > On 2 April 2014 16:33, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> The subsection already exists in one well-known enterprise Linux >> distribution, but for some strange reason the fields were swapped >> when forward-porting the patch to upstream. >> >> Limit headaches for said enterprise Linux distributor when the >> time will come to rebase their version of QEMU. >> >> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini >> --- >> target-i386/machine.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/target-i386/machine.c b/target-i386/machine.c >> index 24bc373..168cab6 100644 >> --- a/target-i386/machine.c >> +++ b/target-i386/machine.c >> @@ -569,8 +569,8 @@ static const VMStateDescription vmstate_msr_hypercall_hypercall = { >> .minimum_version_id = 1, >> .minimum_version_id_old = 1, >> .fields = (VMStateField []) { >> - VMSTATE_UINT64(env.msr_hv_hypercall, X86CPU), >> VMSTATE_UINT64(env.msr_hv_guest_os_id, X86CPU), >> + VMSTATE_UINT64(env.msr_hv_hypercall, X86CPU), >> VMSTATE_END_OF_LIST() >> } > > Surely this is a migration compatibility break and you need to bump > the version fields here? No, it was introduced in 2.0 so we're still in time. Paolo