On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:50:28AM +0100, Juan Quintela wrote: > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:16:57AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote: > >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> writes: > > > >> Since migration doesn't transport configuration, we require a compatibly > >> configured target, and that includes identical memory sizes. RAM size > >> is explicit and the user's problem. ROM size is generally implicit, and > >> we use machine type compatibility machinery to keep it fixed. BIOS > >> changes can break migration only when we screw up or forget the > >> compatibility machinery. Same as for lots of other stuff. No big deal, > >> really, just a consequence of not migrating configuration. > > > > You don't get to maintain it, so it's no big deal for you. > > > > I see pain every single release and code is becoming spaghetty-like very > > quickly. We thought it would work. It does not. We do need a solution. > > > > And the pain is completely self-inflicted: we already migrate > > all necessary information! > > It's just a question of adjusting our datastructures to it. > > migration from version foo to version bar. > > You have two options here: > > - You make source (foo) send the data on the format/sizes that destination > (bar) wants. > - You make destination (bar) handle whatever source (foo) sends. > > You need to put the "spagueti code" in foo or bar. It needs to be in > one of the two places, because if that code was not needed, we would not > be discussion here, see? > > So, what we are discussing is where is better to put this code. Emit > the code that destination expects, or make destination handle whatever > is sent. Amound of mangling need to be basically the same. > > Later, Juan.
This is not what the patch does at all. There is no special-casing depending on machine type anywhere. Please review the code and respond to actual patches. -- MST
