Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 11/23/2009 03:17 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
You mean, each device would have multiple sections? We already use
chunks for each device state.
If they want to, yes.
We only migrate things that are guest visible. Everything else is left
to the user to configure. We wouldn't migrate the state of a RNG
emulation provided that it doesn't have an impact on the guest.
The project doing lockstep virtualization would need to migrate it,
for example.
Lock step is an entirely different beast. The live migration protocol
is not suitable for it.
By definition, anything that is guest visible is important because it
affects the guest's behavior.
Yes, but vendors want backwards-compatibility whenever possible.
Anything that is guest visible is important, but some things are less
important than others (or they wouldn't have been overlooked in the
first place).
I disagree. Everything is equally important if we want migration to be
correct.
I don't see how backwards compatibility fits into this picture though.
The only argument I've heard for a change here is forwards compatibility
which is not something I would ever expect any vendor to want to support.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
