From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KdaqD-0005qb-DA
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 10 Sep 2008 21:19:25 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KdaqA-0005q4-4R
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 10 Sep 2008 21:19:24 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=46177 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Kdaq9-0005q1-Vk
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 10 Sep 2008 21:19:22 -0400
Received: from gv-out-0910.google.com ([216.239.58.185]:49835)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <m.bevand@gmail.com>) id 1Kdaq9-00028a-MA
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 10 Sep 2008 21:19:21 -0400
Received: by gv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id n8so73101gve.36
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:19:20 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <aaccfcb60809101819r5abe4ce0tb383fa1c3666406c@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:19:20 -0700
From: "Marc Bevand" <m.bevand@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Don't use QEMU_VERSION in ATA/ATAPI replies
	to IDENTIFY cmds
In-Reply-To: <48C8669D.2000103@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <OF47F08F32.912096E4-ON852574C1.0001C90F@rapid7.com>
	<48C8669D.2000103@codemonkey.ws>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws> 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.)

Ultimately however I think it should be user-configurable.

-- 
Marc Bevand