On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 08:47:41 +0200 Christian Borntraeger <borntrae...@de.ibm.com> wrote:
> On 09/21/2017 10:26 PM, Michael Roth wrote: > > Quoting Michael Roth (2017-09-21 11:50:28) > >> Quoting Cornelia Huck (2017-09-21 10:21:42) > >>> On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 17:14:46 +0200 > >>> Christian Borntraeger <borntrae...@de.ibm.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> The migration interface for ais was introduced with kernel 4.13 > >>>> but the capability itself had been active since 4.12. As migration > >>>> support is considered necessary lets disable ais in the 2.10 > >>>> stable version. A proper fix and re-enablement will be done > >>>> for qemu 2.11. > >>> > >>> Also now with qemu-devel on cc: > >>> > >>> So, should I apply to s390-next? Or can this be applied just to stable? > >> > >> Ideally we would get it in master or at least a branch that'll > >> eventually get pulled so we can reference the upstream commit ID. > >> It's not set in stone, but usually only patches specifically ported > >> to stable are applied directly. > > > > Somehow I missed the "for 2.10 stable" in the subject line. I can apply > > this directly if it comes to that, but it seems safer to apply this > > upstream as well in the meantime, IMO. If the proper fix didn't make > > 2.11 for whatever reason we'd still be okay with 2.10.1<->2.11, for > > instance. > > > > So what about the following. We will schedule this disable patch also for > current master. Whenever we have a proper fix we can then revert/fixup the > disable patch. This patch will then be backported to 2.10.1 > For 2.11 we then fixup the ais code and also add the "disable ais for compat > machines" patch. Sounds good. I'll queue this one and send a pull request, just to be on the safe side.