From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KdbAz-0006ux-QI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 10 Sep 2008 21:40:53 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KdbAy-0006t7-1G for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 10 Sep 2008 21:40:53 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=53260 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KdbAx-0006sv-Qs for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 10 Sep 2008 21:40:51 -0400 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.176]:54795) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KdbAx-0004qg-FL for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 10 Sep 2008 21:40:51 -0400 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id p76so104754pyb.10 for ; Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:40:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5d6222a80809101840h61cd60c9y767b87333a5f5a00@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 22:40:50 -0300 From: "Glauber Costa" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Don't use QEMU_VERSION in ATA/ATAPI replies to IDENTIFY cmds In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <48C8669D.2000103@codemonkey.ws> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:19 PM, Marc Bevand wrote: > On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> >> Wouldn't it be better to just use whatever QEMU_VERSION is right now with a >> big fat comment? At least then, any VM made with QEMU 0.9.1 won't require >> reactivation. >> No point in breaking everyone by changing it to 1.0. > > Yeah that could work too. > > (However I don't expect that changing it to 1.0 would break everyone. > Only a minority. Because multiple hardware changes are necessary to > trigger a need for reactivacion. In my case, I was changing the MAC > address, upgrading to a 64-bit host (it made Windows see slightly > different CPUID results), and upgrading QEMU (it made Windows see new > hdd/dvd drive firmware versions). All 3 events were necessary to > trigger a need for reactivation.) given this info you just provided, this is probably a non-issue. After all, if you're changing so much things in your guest, you _are_ changing your machine in every way that matters to the O.S. So if the O.S. is sucky enough to require those kind of activations, we should ultimately respect it. -- Glauber Costa. "Free as in Freedom" http://glommer.net "The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act."