On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 09:21:45AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > Hi, > > > > So, sorting entries (and the index assigned too) should fix this, right? > > > That looks easiest to me. > > > > Presumably, anything happening before (and after) user-provided blobs > > are inserted will continue happening in the same order everywhere. > > Which might change in the future though, in case the initialization > order changes for some reason. It's not a problem we have at the > moment, so this stuff isn't urgent. But we might face it in the future. > > > So we really only have to sort the user provided blobs, so that if > > the same *set* is provided on both ends of the migration, things would > > work out OK. > > I would simply sort everything (and do it for new machine types only, > for backward compatibility reasons). Sorting user-provided blobs only > adds complexity for no reason. > > > If a *different* set of blobs is specified on the migration origin vs. > > the migration destination, we lose by default and worrying about it is > > pointless -- did I get that right ? > > Yes. For migration to succeed you have to supply the same configuration > on both ends. That includes user-provided fw_cfg blobs of course. > > cheers, > Gerd >
Do we want this for all machine types, or only for new ones? -- MST
