On 08/01/16 14:55, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 8 January 2016 at 14:34, Mark Cave-Ayland > <mark.cave-ayl...@ilande.co.uk> wrote: >> I'm not particularly worried about sun4u for the moment as there are >> already other reasons why migration would fail, e.g. no >> VMStateDescription for storing PCI interrupt state in the apb host bridge. >> >> Last time I checked sun4m migration appeared to work under some very >> light testing, so as long as this behaviour is preserved then I don't >> see a problem. > > OK. Does this apply to all 64-bit SPARC CPUs? (There are some > things I can simplify in the CPU migration code if we can break > 64-bit migration.)
Yes, seems reasonable to me - I'm fairly sure that sun4u migration is incomplete so I'd be amazed if anyone were successfully using this out in the field. ATB, Mark.
