On Tue, 06 Mar 2018 10:12:42 +0000,
peter maydell wrote:
> On 6 March 2018 at 09:50, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyng...@arm.com> wrote:
> > On 05/03/18 20:37, Auger Eric wrote:
> >> On 05/03/18 17:31, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >>> That also means that we will fail migration from a new kernel where
> >>> we've specifically asked for PSCI 0.2 to an old PSCI-0.2-only kernel
> >>> (because the KVM_REG_ARM_PSCI_VERSION reg will appear in the migration
> >>> stream even if its value is the one value that matches the old kernel
> >>> behaviour). I don't know if we care about that.
> >>
> >> Do you know when are we likely to force PSCI 0.2 on a new kernel? At
> >> which layer is the decision supposed to be made and on which criteria?
> >
> > No decent SW should need this. But if you've written a guest that cannot
> > work if it doesn't get "2" as response to PSCI_VERSION, you can override it.
> ...but if you want to be able to migrate back from a new kernel to
> an old one, then you need to ask the new kernel for 0.2 so it
> behaves the same way as the old one. As it stands this code wouldn't
> let you do that migration even if you did specifically ask for 0.2.
> (As I said, I don't know if we care about that.)

Absolutely. The moment we introduce a new sysreg, we create a
migration barrier. I'm not sure how the kernel can help in this


Jazz is not dead, it just smell funny.

Reply via email to