From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45697) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z5G0r-0002Km-Cq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 12:16:30 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z5G0m-0005GA-NQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 12:16:29 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:43115) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z5G0m-0005Fu-Hv for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 12:16:24 -0400 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46550B8BB9 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 16:16:24 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <55819D53.2090508@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 18:16:19 +0200 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20150617094829-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <55812BC4.3000600@redhat.com> <20150617121148-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <55815B06.5030508@redhat.com> <20150617133816-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <55815FA7.3070205@redhat.com> <20150617135340-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <55816039.3080103@redhat.com> <20150617135716-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <5581660E.2090807@redhat.com> <20150617164437-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20150617164437-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Migration compatibility for serial List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: amit.shah@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git)" , quintela@redhat.com On 17/06/2015 16:50, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > I just tried, set prog_if to different values, sure it failed. > > > > How so? It's just a byte in config space. But even then, fixing > > migration is just a side effect of keeping config space consistent for a > > given machine type (i.e. not changing hardware type under the guest's feet). > > David's patches are also guest visible, are they not? > We are losing state guest can indirectly observe, right? One case only happens during migration, the other does not. Paolo