Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> writes: > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 01:50:10PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 05:21:16PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: >> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 11:54:48AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> > > John Snow <js...@redhat.com> writes: >> > > >> > > > On 08/19/2015 02:55 AM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: >> > > >> * Eduardo Habkost (ehabk...@redhat.com) wrote: >> > > >>> Migration with q35 was not possible before commit >> > > >>> 04329029a8c539eb5f75dcb6d8b016f0c53a031a, because q35 >> > > >>> unconditionally creates >> > > >>> an ich9-ahci device, that was marked as unmigratable. So all >> > > >>> q35 machines >> > > >>> before pc-q35-2.4 were unmigratable, and there's no point in keeping >> > > >>> compatibility code for them. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Remove all old pc-q35 machine classes and keep only pc-q35-2.4. >> > > >> >> > > >> But doesn't that mean that anyone who has a machine configured with >> > > >> one >> > > >> of those machine types will suddenly find it wont start? >> > > >> >> > > >> Dave >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > > To some extent, all versions of this board prior to 2.4 should be >> > > > considered unsupported and we should discourage their use anyway. >> > > > >> > > > If you really want, I suppose we could just alias them to 2.4 ... >> > > >> > > I'd very much prefer an honest "won't start" over a silent change of the >> > > machine type. >> > > >> > > If we really want to bend over backwards for existing uses of these >> > > machine types, we could make them error out with "use pc-q35-2.5 >> > > instead". Since I don't think they exist outside testing, I wouldn't >> > > bother. >> > >> > Agreed, we should be reporting a hard error for any machine types we >> > have deleted. Or if we care about smooth upgrade path then we shouldn't >> > be deleting them in the first place. Silently changing the user's >> > requested machine type into a different machine type is violating >> > the semantics of stable machine types. >> > >> > Regards, >> > Daniel >> >> The reason we are deleting them is because changes in behaviour are not >> user visible implementation details, and live migration is unsupported. >> >> In other words 2.4 is identical to <2.3 in all respect except live >> migration, which didn't work in <2.3 and works in 2.4, that's why >> aliasing them is fine.
While I don't think maintaining the old, not-really-functional q35 types is worth the bother, I wouldn't mind these aliases... > I don't know what you mean by "not user visible implementation details" > and "identical in all respect", because I see lots of compat code that > implement user-visible differences inside pc_compat_*(), PC_COMPAT_*, > pc_q35_*_machine_options() for 2.3 and older. ... *if* the compat code *demonstrably* has no guest-visible effects.
