On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 12:28:04PM -0400, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 11:54 AM Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> > wrote: > > > > On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 at 16:46, Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuzn...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > When a migration blocker is added nothing is reported to the user, > > > inability to migrate such guest may come as a late surprise. As a bare > > > minimum, we can print a warning. To not pollute the output for those, who > > > have no intention to migrate their guests, introduce '--no-migration' > > > option which both block the migration and eliminates warning from > > > > I'm not a fan. For a lot of people and configurations this > > is going to be "add an extra complaint from QEMU to a previously > > working configuration". We add too many of those already. > > I agree that warning with machine types that never supported live > migration would be useless noise, but warning if using an explicit > versioned machine type sounds like a reasonable default (as long as > the warnings includes clear instructions on how to silence them).
Libvirt will always expand a machine type alias into a versioned machine type, because stable ABI is useful even if never migrating, because it ensures the guest OS doesn't see hardware changes that may trigger license re-activation At the same time a large portion of users will never care about live migration/save/restore, or they do care but will hotunplug the problems devices before attempting a migration. IMHO tieing messages to versioned machine types is not desirable as a strategy by default. Warning about migration compatibility should be an explicit opt-in Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
