Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 19 November 2014 14:07, Juan Quintela <quint...@redhat.com> wrote: >> My understanding is that it is a "trick". We have internal memory for a >> device that is needed for the emulation, but not showed to the guest. >> And it is big enough that we want to save it during the "live" stage of >> migration, so we mark it as RAM. if it is somekind of cash, we can just >> enlarge it on destination, and it don't matter. If this has anything >> different on the other part of the RAM, we are on trouble. > > Would it be feasible to just have the migration code provide > an API for registering things to be migrated in the live > migration stage, rather than creating memory regions which > you can't actually use for most of the purposes the memory > region API exists for?
If somebody told me what they need, we can do it. Stefan, you needed something like that for data-plane? Or that memory is mapped on the guest? Later, Juan.
