Re: [PATCH 00/18] hw: Mark the device with no migratable fields

[Laurent Vivier <laurent@vivier.eu>]

Le 14/01/2021 à 16:49, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé a écrit :
> On 7/9/20 9:19 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 at 21:19, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4bug@amsat.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> This is a proof-of-concept after chatting with Peter Maydell
>>> on IRC earlier.
>>>
>>> Introduce the vmstate_no_state_to_migrate structure, and
>>> a reference to it: vmstate_qdev_no_state_to_migrate.
>>> Use this reference in devices with no fields to migrate.
>>>
>>> This is useful to catch devices missing vmstate, such:
>>> - ads7846
>>> - mcf-uart
>>> - mcf-fec
>>> - versatile_i2c
>>> - ...
>>>
>>> I am not sure about:
>>> - gpex-pcihost
>>
>> I think it's correct that this has no internal state:
>> the only interesting state is in the GPEXRootState, which
>> is a TYPE_GPEX_ROOT_DEVICE which migrates itself.
>>
>> I made some comments on the "meaty" bits of the patchset,
>> and reviewed one or two of the "mark this device as
>> having no migration state" patches, but it doesn't seem
>> worth reviewing all of them until the migration submaintainers
>> have a chance to weigh in on whether they like the concept
>> (I expect they're busy right now with freeze-related stuff :-))
> 
> Now that we are far from freeze-date is a good time to ping
> again on this concept :)
> 
> Most of the devices are ARM except:
> - cpu-cluster (Eduardo/Marcel)
> - hcd-ohci (Gerd)
> - mac-nubus-bridge (Laurent)
> - generic QOM (Daniel, Paolo)
> 
> Is someone against this proposal?

I'm not against the proposal, but I don't understand why we need this.

Thanks,
Laurent