From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51075) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XrObC-0002kB-KU for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 05:04:35 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XrOb3-0003yu-I9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 05:04:26 -0500 Received: from mail-wg0-x22b.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c00::22b]:56510) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XrOb3-0003yp-A2 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 05:04:17 -0500 Received: by mail-wg0-f43.google.com with SMTP id l18so3263832wgh.2 for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 02:04:16 -0800 (PST) Sender: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <546DBC9D.40407@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 11:04:13 +0100 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1412607364-14141-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <5462439F.6080401@redhat.com> <546D8491.2010000@redhat.com> <20141120065545.GC30994@redhat.com> <546D9409.9090608@redhat.com> <20141120075540.GA2808@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20141120075540.GA2808@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/3] Migration-safe ACPI table sizing algorithm List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 20/11/2014 08:55, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 08:11:05AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> >> >> On 20/11/2014 07:55, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> I thought we agreed we'll consider alternate approaches after 2.2? >>> I would prefer not to have yet another mode to support >>> if we can help it. >> >> I agree, but: >> >> 1) looks like there is stronger opposition to your patch than I thought, >> so a 2.2 solution as in this patch becomes more palatable > > Why the urgency? It's not fixing any regressions, is it? > I would rather not add yet another mode for 2.2, > we'll likely have a new mode in 2.3 but I'd like that to > be the last one. I don't think there's a need to add both patches. If mine goes in, and it can go in 2.2 since it is "just another mode", there is no need for resizable MemoryRegions. Paolo >> 2) reviewing patches is always nice, and helps evaluating the advantages >> of either approach >> >> Paolo > > I'll do my best, sorry about the delay - I'm trying to prioritize > 2.2 work at the moment. >