From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50976) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XLrRQ-0008T2-I3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 06:24:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XLrRK-00058I-9t for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 06:24:00 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:52340 helo=mx2.suse.de) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XLrRK-00058E-38 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 06:23:54 -0400 Message-ID: <53FB0EB9.8090904@suse.de> Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 12:23:53 +0200 From: Alexander Graf MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1408962121-8867-1-git-send-email-aik@ozlabs.ru> In-Reply-To: <1408962121-8867-1-git-send-email-aik@ozlabs.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH] vmstate: Enable custom migration block name check List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Alexey Kardashevskiy , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 25.08.14 12:22, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: > This adds a callback to support custom names for migration blocks. > > Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy > --- > > RFC! not a real patch! > > There was a problem a while ago how to migrate sPAPR TCE tables - they > needed unique id + instance_id and there 2 approaches for that: > > 1. Put them on a virtual made-up TCE bus, LIOBN (logical bus number) is > an unique ID and this would give TCE tables unique names like > liobn@80000000/spapr_iommu, instance id would always be 0. > > vmstate_spapr_tce_table would be registered via DeviceClass::vmsd pointer. > > 2. Do not register vmsd via DeviceClass and use explicit call of > vmstate_register() using LIOBN as an instance id. This way TCE tables would > get "spapr_iommu" name and unique id == LIOBN. > > Approach 2 is used by upstream. > > Both 1 and 2 were suggested by maintainers :) However with 1 month delay > and I started using 1) in our internal build of "powerkvm". > > In the current version of our internal "powerkvm" thing I used 2) as this > is what upstream uses. > > > The proposed patch is a part of a hack to allow migration > liobn@80000000/spapr_iommu + 0 to spapr_iommu + 80000000. > > > Is this too horrible to be considered as a patch for upstream? Is there any reason you can't keep this patch in your downstream fork along with the user of it? :) Alex