From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59737) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WBt98-0001gU-M9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 16:39:43 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WBt90-0001xT-8Y for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 16:39:38 -0500 Received: from mail-lb0-f169.google.com ([209.85.217.169]:56667) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WBt90-0001xI-1p for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 16:39:30 -0500 Received: by mail-lb0-f169.google.com with SMTP id q8so3180956lbi.28 for ; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 13:39:29 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <52F55006.1030509@suse.de> References: <1375063438-3149-1-git-send-email-afaerber@suse.de> <20130902114109.GD20911@redhat.com> <52F55006.1030509@suse.de> From: Peter Maydell Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 21:39:08 +0000 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC for-next 0/2] QOM VMStateDescription remix List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: =?UTF-8?Q?Andreas_F=C3=A4rber?= Cc: Paolo Bonzini , Juan Quintela , QEMU Developers , Anthony Liguori , "Michael S. Tsirkin" On 7 February 2014 21:28, Andreas F=C3=A4rber wrote: > I have found a single such case: armv7m_nvic overrides arm_gic_common > with a completely different vmsd. How can we fix that? :) We can deduce from this that nobody's been using migration with the Cortex-M3, since it would obviously be totally busted. So the answer is "any way you like". The M profile code in QEMU is not really maintained; mostly I just accept patches that don't make things worse. What the code is presumably attempting to do is add the extra fields for the systick timer on top of the base state for the interrupt controller. Personally I'd be tempted to split systick out into its own little device. (It's only bundled in with the NVIC because this code predates memory regions and at the time you couldn't really do the system register region any other way.) thanks -- PMM