On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 08:33:07AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 24/12/2014 13:41, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >> I don't think these are necessary, and I thought these were just RFC > >> when they were posted. I and mst didn't really understand each other, > >> and I take the fault for not reviewing the submission; however, Peter, > >> please hold these for a little more. > >> > >> Paolo > > > > Yes, please do, I'd like Paolo to review at least the memory core > > changes. > > I don't have any issue with the implementation; I'm just not sure that > this is necessary. > > My point is that until ACPI tables are actually trimmed, migration > really won't be broken. So there is no need to apply these patches > until/unless we are ready to trim the tables.
So far, the only case where we *didn't* break migration was when we only did minor changes, in 2.2. So sorry, I don't buy the "reviewed the code and it's safe" argument. There's just too much state. Assume there will be bugs. What is a solution you propose to make at least one way migration work in case of bugs? Without answering this question, I don't see how we can make major changes in the subsystem. I guess this boils down to this: what's the risk associated with merging this patchset? It's a small amount of code. -- MST
