qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH 0/4] Fix subsection ambiguity in the migrati


From: Anthony Liguori
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH 0/4] Fix subsection ambiguity in the migration format
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 08:14:46 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110516 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10

On 07/25/2011 04:10 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 17:46, Paolo Bonzini<address@hidden>  wrote:
I have now tested this series (exactly as sent) both by examining
manually the differences between the two formats on the same guest
state, and by a mix of saves/restores (new on new, 0.14 on new
pc-0.14, new pc-0.14 on 0.14; also the same combinations on RHEL).  It
always does what is expected.

Michael Tsirkin objected that the format should be passed as a
parameter in the migrate command.  I kind of agree, however since this
is a real bug you would need to bump the default for new machine
types, and this default would still go in the QEMUMachine struct like
I am doing.  So I consider the two settings to be orthogonal.  Also,
the alternative requires changes to the whole management stack and if
the default is not changed it imposes a broken format unless you
update the management tools.  Clearly much less bang for the buck.

I think this is ready to go into 0.15.  The bug happens when migrating
to 0.14 a pc-0.14 machine created with QEMU 0.15 and which has a
floppy.  The media changed subsection is almost always included, and
this causes problems when migrating to 0.14 which didn't have any
subsection for the floppy device.  While QEMU support for migration to
old version admittedly depends on luck, this isn't true of certain
downstreams :) which would like to have an unambiguous migration
format.

I really hate the idea of changing the migration format moments before the release.

Since subsections are optional, can't we take the offending subsections, remove them, bump the section version numbers and make the fields required?

That "fixes" this issue temporarily without changing the format and we can change the format for 1.0.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori


Paolo






reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]