On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 at 13:23, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 02:09:17PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 10:49:43 +0000 > > Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > It's question of whether we are willing to do unthinkable, > > i.e. to break QEMU <-> guest ABI for isapc case by removing > > corresponding fwcfg entries. > > There has never been any ABI stability requirement for 'isapc' > as it is not a versioned machine type. > > > With migration ignored it shouldn't be a problem. > > Question is: does anyone care about migration with isapc? > > If not, I'd gladly axe smbios legacy parts in 9.1 > > Migration is irrelevant unless someone steps forward to > commit to long term versioning of the machine type. But migration is also how we implement savevm/loadvm, which are useful even when the machine type is not versioned. So please don't put in migration blockers or similar that would break that. thanks -- PMM _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
