On 2/18/19 12:37 AM, David Gibson wrote: > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 02:35:03PM +0100, Cédric Le Goater wrote: >> On 2/15/19 2:18 PM, Greg Kurz wrote: >>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 13:55:53 +0100 >>> Cédric Le Goater <c...@kaod.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2/15/19 12:40 PM, Greg Kurz wrote: >>>>> The KVM ICP class isn't used anymore. Drop it. >>>> >>>> Isn't migration complaining ? If not, >>>> >>> >>> Hm.. no, but why would migration complain ? >> >> You are changing the type name of the object being transferred: >> >> "icp-kcm" -> "icp" > > It's a little more complex than that. The way migration works, the > state associated with the base class is transferred under the name > "icp" and the state associated with the derived class is transferred > under the name "icp-kvm". > >> Isn't that an issue ? > > It would be.. except that there is no extra state in the derived > class, which is why we got away with this not-very-good solution at > all in the first place.
Ah good. Another reason to get rid of the sub-class. C.
