On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:22:41AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> writes: > > > On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 09:08:20PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> Michael Roth <mdr...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: > >> > >> > Migration from 1.3 currently fails due to a mismatch between the > >> > expected size > >> > of 256KB and the received size of 128KB for seabios. This series > >> > attempts to > >> > fix the issue by allowing a resize function to be registered to handle > >> > resizing > >> > memory blocks to accomodate the source's, and using that to re-initialize > >> > "pc.bios" and "isa-bios" MemoryRegions based on the size of the incoming > >> > block. > >> > > >> > There are also 2 potential alternatives to this patch set: > >> > > >> > 1) When I compile seabios 1.7.2 locally I end up with a 128KB binary. > >> > >> So do I on Fedora 18. Unless someone has a reason why this is a bad > >> thing, I'll commit a 128kb binary and we can avoid this problem for 1.4. > >> > >> Obviously, we need to figure it out but that at least buys us some time... > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Anthony Liguori > > > > So we never bothered with this patch, and so it's still out. > > How about we apply this for 1.5? > > This problem occurred because Gerd built SeaBIOS on RHEL6.x which > resulted in a 256k binary. > > On F18, we're still fitting in 128k. There is no reason to worry about > BIOS size right now. > > At some point, we will need to split into two separate BIOSes--a 128Kb > and a 256Kb. This can be handled by having two SeaBIOS configuration > files where one has a reduced feature set. > > We then would create an i440fx property that selects either the 128Kb or > 256Kb BIOS. This property can then be setup as part of machine globals. > > So -M 1.4 or -M 1.5 will always use a 128Kb BIOS. If we need to, 1.6 > may end up with a 256Kb BIOS. > > > This way we, at least, won't have the problem with -M1.5 in the future. > > Barring that - early in 1.6 cycle? > > The problem with Mike's patch is that it only solves older -> newer. > The solution I outlined above also works for newer -> older. > > Regards, > > Anthony Liguori
Why doesn't the same approach work for new->old? I am guessing you are talking about migration to 1.4 and older? > > > > -- > > MST
