On Thursday 17 June 2010 00:05:44 Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 05:48:46PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > > Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:36:49PM +0800, Sheng Yang wrote: > > >> Signed-off-by: Sheng Yang <sh...@linux.intel.com> > > >> --- > > >> > > >> qemu-kvm-x86.c | 109 > > >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- qemu-kvm.c > > >> | 24 +++++++++++ > > >> qemu-kvm.h | 28 +++++++++++++ > > >> target-i386/cpu.h | 5 ++ > > >> target-i386/kvm.c | 2 + > > >> target-i386/machine.c | 20 +++++++++ > > >> 6 files changed, 169 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) > > > > > > Applied, thanks. > > > > Oops, late remark: Why introducing this feature against qemu-kvm instead > > of upstream? Doesn't this just generate additional conversion work and > > the risk of divergence to upstream in the migration protocol?
Hi Jan You're late... Hope you could raise the comment earlier next time so we can work together more efficient. > > Thats true. Sheng, can you add save/restore support to uq/master to > avoid these problems? Yes, there is divergence risk, would send an upstream version as well. But I think as long as qemu-kvm and qemu upstream use different LM path, the duplicate code/work can't be avoid. > Then the cpuid bits can be also merged upstream. -- regards Yang, Sheng -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
