On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 16:54:18 +0000 Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 05:08:57PM +0100, Greg Kurz wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 15:08:18 +1100 > > David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 08:41:03PM +0100, Greg Kurz wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > It breaks migration of pre-2.7 machine types with unusual CPU > > > > topologies, > > > > but I guess this is an acceptable trade-off. > > > > > > No, not really. Weird topologies are still allowed on old machine > > > types for backwards compatibility, and we shouldn't break that. I > > > like the idea of consolidating this calculation, but we can't do it by > > > just breaking the older machines (at least not until they're formally > > > deprecated). > > > > > > > Heh, I had put this patch at the end because I was expecting you might > > nack it :) > > > > Per curiosity, when/how do we decide that an older machine type may be > > formally deprecated ? > > For versioned machine types we decided that we'd keep them around upstream > for as long as they were needed by a downstream vendor, *provided* that > downstream vendor is contributing to QEMU in order to mitigate the maint > burden it would entail. > Indeed I now remember having heard something like that in the past. Thanks for the details anyway. :) And, this is probably a dumb question, but do we have an up-to-date list of QEMU versions still needed by a contributing vendor ? > Regards, > Daniel
