On 08/25/2014 08:23 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > > On 25.08.14 12:22, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: >> This adds a callback to support custom names for migration blocks. >> >> Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <[email protected]> >> --- >> >> RFC! not a real patch! >> >> There was a problem a while ago how to migrate sPAPR TCE tables - they >> needed unique id + instance_id and there 2 approaches for that: >> >> 1. Put them on a virtual made-up TCE bus, LIOBN (logical bus number) is >> an unique ID and this would give TCE tables unique names like >> liobn@80000000/spapr_iommu, instance id would always be 0. >> >> vmstate_spapr_tce_table would be registered via DeviceClass::vmsd pointer. >> >> 2. Do not register vmsd via DeviceClass and use explicit call of >> vmstate_register() using LIOBN as an instance id. This way TCE tables would >> get "spapr_iommu" name and unique id == LIOBN. >> >> Approach 2 is used by upstream. >> >> Both 1 and 2 were suggested by maintainers :) However with 1 month delay >> and I started using 1) in our internal build of "powerkvm". >> >> In the current version of our internal "powerkvm" thing I used 2) as this >> is what upstream uses. >> >> >> The proposed patch is a part of a hack to allow migration >> liobn@80000000/spapr_iommu + 0 to spapr_iommu + 80000000. >> >> >> Is this too horrible to be considered as a patch for upstream? > > Is there any reason you can't keep this patch in your downstream fork > along with the user of it? :)
I can and most likely will. But someone else could benefit from it sometime later, dunno, there are already manymany callbacks, why not one more :) But mostly - I actually want to know if what patch does can be done without it. Enormous amount of callbacks and flags tell me that it is possible, I am just not smart enough to see it :) -- Alexey
