* Peter Maydell (peter.mayd...@linaro.org) wrote: > On 22 June 2016 at 12:54, Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilb...@redhat.com> wrote: > > * Peter Maydell (peter.mayd...@linaro.org) wrote: > >> On 22 June 2016 at 12:35, Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilb...@redhat.com> > >> wrote: > >> > Yes, my hope is that any versioned machine type should migrate to > >> > a newer qemu with the same machine type set. > >> > > >> > There are really two separate things that we state with the machine > >> > versioning: > >> > a) that the guest view is the same > >> > b) that the migration format is the same > >> > >> Well, this is true for PC. > > > > PC, ppc/spapr, and I think s390. > > > >> But my impression when we started > >> applying versioned machine types to ARM virt was that it was > >> signing up to (a) but not (yet) (b)... > > > > So that would make ARM special; the problem is we have no way > > to communicate to the user that it's special. > > Is anybody testing that migration between versions for > virt works?
I don't know (Perhaps Drew knows), but I'd love to add a make check test for the x86 equivalent, but there's two things I'm stuck on; 1) What to run in the guest to check it survives 2) How to know we have an old qemu binary to check. I was thinking for (2) I could use an environment variable and if it's not set then skip the test. For (1) perhaps a trivial little image (like I use for postcopy) that wouldn't check much except that the CPU/serial is still happy, but at least migration completed OK. You could use virt-test/avocado to run a test with a full guest; it has options to specify source and destination qemu's separately. Dave > > thanks > -- PMM -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
