On (Wed) 16 Feb 2011 [08:41:27], Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 02/16/2011 08:39 AM, Amit Shah wrote: > >On (Tue) 15 Feb 2011 [17:13:13], Anthony Liguori wrote: > >>On 02/15/2011 10:26 AM, Chris Wright wrote: > >>>revisit new -> old migration > >>>- Amit offers virtio-serial patches and some legwork > >>So, to me, migration correctness trumps compatibility. I don't > >>think compatibility is useful if it means that a guest may fail > >>during migration. We have subsections as a way to support the cases > >>where it's safe to migrate to an old version only if a feature is > >>not being used or a corner case is not currently happening. This is > >>the best way to approach the problem. > >> > >>If a subsection won't work, that means you want to migrate when > >>you're completely sure that migrating will break a guest. That > >>doesn't seem reasonable at all to me. > >> > >>I think in the last discussion on Amit's patches, I had suggested > >>that subsections could be used to allow migration when there wasn't > >>any queued data. I think this is the best we can do while > >>preserving correctness. > >The only problem is that virtio hasn't been converted over to vmstate, > >which is necessary for subsections. > > Then it needs to be converted. But that can't be done for 0.14. Amit -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
