On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 10:14:30 +0800 Yongji Xie <elohi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 19:45, Greg Kurz <gr...@kaod.org> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 17:31:17 +0800 > > elohi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > From: Xie Yongji <xieyon...@baidu.com> > > > > > > In order to avoid migration issues, we introduce a "use-started" > > > property to the base virtio device to indicate whether use > > > "started" flag or not. This property will be true by default and > > > set to false when machine type <= 4.0.1. > > > > > > Suggested-by: Greg Kurz <gr...@kaod.org> > > > Signed-off-by: Xie Yongji <xieyon...@baidu.com> > > > --- > > > hw/block/vhost-user-blk.c | 4 ++-- > > > hw/core/machine.c | 8 ++++++-- > > > > This patch conflicts with latest upstream changes to hw_compat_4_0_1[]. > > > > It seems you need to rebase. Also, I'm still not sure how we're supposed > > to handle hw_compat_4_0_1[] versus hw_compat_4_0[]... nobody commented > > on: > > > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-06/msg00637.html > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-06/msg00641.html > > > > Maybe worth to sort that out before re-posting. > > > > If hw_compat_4_0_1[] is introduced only for q35, I think this patch > should be OK. If not, maybe we should handle hw_compat_4_0_1[] in > other machine types (i440fx, arm, ppc, s390)? > It turns out that hw_compat_4_0_1[] isn't needed at all. Please see: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-06/msg03054.html > Hi Alex and Paolo, > > Any comment for this? > > Thanks, > Yongji
