On 03/27/2012 12:42 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-03-27 18:49, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/27/2012 11:46 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/27/2012 06:39 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
So, since we're approaching 1.1, we should really discuss release
criteria for 1.1 with respect to live migration. I'd prefer to avoid
surprises in this release.
Agree strongly.
My expectation is that migration works from:
qemu-1.0 -M 1.0 => qemu-1.1 -M 1.1
Why do you expect that? Maybe you meant -M 1.0 at the end?
Sorry, I did mean -M 1.0.
qemu-1.1 -M 1.0<= qemu-1.1 -M 1.0
I would expect that migration works from:
qemu-0.15 -M 0.15 => qemu-1.1 -M 0.15
Ack.
I'm okay if this fails gracefully:
qemu-1.1 -M 0.15<= qemu-0.15 -M 0.15
RHEL has more stringent requirements (going back to its heavily patched
0.12). I think we should have the infrastructure that allow one to add
the hacks to make this work, even if we don't actually do the compat
work for the release (I think it's fine for qemu to support just one
version going back; and unreasonable to require it to go as far back as
RHEL).
This is reasonable to me.
Here is a draft to get things written in the old format. Totally
untested and likely borken (written in a hurry). I'll split up if it
works fine.
I don't really like this as a matter of principle.
Knowingly migrating when the result may be a broken guest is a bug, it's not a
feature.
It's one thing if we're changing formats for other reasons, but if we're
changing the format to send what's effectively broken migration state, then
that's an evil thing to do.
Subsections are the compromise. We send a subsection when we think migration
can work and fail gracefully when it can't. Presumably there's a reason we're
not using subsections here.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
--
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
