On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 01:46:58PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 05/07/2016 13:09, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > How do you handle migration in the above scenario from say 46bit host to > > > 39bit host, where the firmware has mapped (while running on the source) > > > a 64-bit BAR above the destination's maximum physical address? > > > > Again management would specify how much 64 bit pci space firmware should > > use. > > If more is specified than host can support we can error out. > > Ok, so the destination would fail to start. > > It sounds good, and it may provide a good reason not to enable > autodetection of phys-addr-bits for new machine types. We still want > David's patches for -cpu host,
Right, but I think current patches aren't limited to -cpu host - I guess they will need some changes then? > and for improved backwards compatibility > now that KVM_SET_MSR error detection is strict. Sounds good. > Thanks, > > Paolo
