From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48751) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XALuX-00046M-HM for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 12:30:37 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XALuQ-0007Z6-2F for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 12:30:29 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:8770) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XALuP-0007Yq-RD for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 12:30:21 -0400 Message-ID: <53D13496.4080107@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 18:30:14 +0200 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1406212329-24439-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <1406212329-24439-3-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <53D13459.3000507@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <53D13459.3000507@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 for-2.1 2/2] pc: hack for migration compatibility from QEMU 2.0 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Laszlo Ersek , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: amit.shah@redhat.com, peter.maydell@linaro.org, dgilbert@redhat.com, mst@redhat.com Il 24/07/2014 18:29, Laszlo Ersek ha scritto: > I compared this too with its v1 counterpart, and it looks good. I have > one question (just curiosity): the following paragraph was dropped from > the commit message -- why? > > -Non-AML tables can change depending on the configuration (especially > -MADT, SRAT, HPET) but they remain the same between QEMU 2.0 and 2.1, > -so we only compute our padding based on the sizes of the SSDT and DSDT. > > I think this remains true in v2 as well: > - "aml_len" and "legacy_aml_len" still "only" cover the DSDT and the > SSDT, and > - the non-AML tables (eg. the MADT, now spelled out in the commit > message), although they may grow with the number of CPUs, continue to > remain the same between 2.0 and 2.1. > > IOW, I think you could have kept this paragraph if you wanted to. Was it > an oversight to drop it, or did the paragraph contain something > incorrect (in v1) that I'm unaware of? Or is it just redundant? An oversight. I had added it to the mail before sending it, not directly in the commit message. I'll add it back for the pull request (tomorrow morning). Paolo