From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60240) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xr6FV-0001NI-Km for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 09:28:55 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xr6FP-0007jd-GF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 09:28:49 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:41416) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xr6FP-0007jX-0g for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 09:28:43 -0500 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id sAJESgE2025554 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 09:28:42 -0500 Message-ID: <546CA914.6030207@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 15:28:36 +0100 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87y4r7o8dh.fsf@elfo.elfo> <20141119093320.GA26119@redhat.com> <87d28jo5yp.fsf@elfo.elfo> <20141119102136.GC26395@redhat.com> <878uj7o4ec.fsf@elfo.elfo> <20141119132851.GA27435@redhat.com> <87vbmbmhaj.fsf@elfo.elfo> <546CA051.4050803@redhat.com> <87egszmgn4.fsf@elfo.elfo> <546CA4F5.2080202@redhat.com> <20141119141603.GD2355@work-vm> In-Reply-To: <20141119141603.GD2355@work-vm> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/5] exec: qemu_ram_alloc_device, qemu_ram_resize List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, quintela@redhat.com On 19/11/2014 15:16, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: >> > Consider the similar case on real hardware: >> > >> > boot >> > update microcode RPM >> > s4 >> > turn on >> > >> > CPU microcode is installed early by the kernel, before looking for a >> > hibernation image to resume from, so the CPU microcode after resume from >> > S4 is different from the microcode at the time you suspended to disk. >> > This probably would work. > You mean, unless for example, someone had disabled a CPU feature in the > new microcode? A random example, right? :) I think it reinforces my point---just like it would work almost always on real hardware, but can fails if the stars align right, it should work almost always on QEMU. It doesn't have to be _perfect_. Bugs are always possible, of course, but things can be tested. Interested people/downstreams (hint, hint!) can try doing S4 on a release and restarting on the next, with and without machine type changes. If it breaks, it can be fixed or just documented. Paolo