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 <afaerber@xxxxxxx> 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 -- 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
