Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call agenda for tuesday 31

[Peter Maydell]

Ping re the VMState and variable sized arrays issue. I don't
see any consensus in this discussion for a different approach,
so should we just commit Mitsyanko's patchset?

- PMM

On 31 January 2012 13:15, Andreas Färber <address@hidden> wrote:
> Am 31.01.2012 00:53, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
>> On 01/30/2012 05:41 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
>>> Am 30.01.2012 19:55, schrieb Juan Quintela:
>>>> Please send in any agenda items you are interested in covering.
>
>>> VMState:
>>> Anthony specifically said that VMState were not affected by QOM and that
>>> patches should not be deferred until the merge. Yet there's no review
>>> and/or decision-making for a month now. Ping^2 for AHCI+SDHC.
>>
>> Do you have pointers (to pending VMState patches)?
>
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/137732/ (PATCH v4)
>
> It's basically about how to deal with variable-sized arrays. (Alex
> mentioned it on one call around November.) I found ways to deal with
> subsets of arrays embedded within the struct and variable-sized list of
> pointers to structs but no solution for a malloc()'ed array of structs.
> Maybe I'm just too stupid to see. Anyway, no one commented since Xmas.
>
> Igor posted (and refined for v2) a patch with a callback-based approach
> that I find promising. From my view, unofficially Juan is the VMState
> guy, he's been cc'ed. Are we lacking an official maintainer that cares?
> Or is Juan the official, undocumented maintainer but simply busy?
>
> SUSE's interest is making AHCI migratable, and my VMState workaround for
> that is simply ugly:
>
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/133066/ (RFC)
>
> Therefore I'm waiting for some resolution.
>
> Regards,
> Andreas