Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: optional feature

[Anthony Liguori]

Juan Quintela wrote:
> > > up rtc version +1
> > > add the two fields that we need (together with rtc-td-hack value)
> > >       
> > And why this is better? You can't migrate old VM to new qemu even if you
> > don't use rtc-td-hack on new one.
> >     
>
> I think the difference between us is:
> - is rtc-td-hack a hack that should only be used for some users
> - it is a valid rtc feature that should be available to everybody
> - it is independent, or it needs an rtc to have any value.
>   

We need a single table that contains the full state for the device.

Many devices will have knobs.  There are two likely types of knobs:

1) something that indicates how an array of state is going to be
2) a boolean that indicates whether a portion of state is valid

rtc-td falls into the second category.  It makes sense to me that the 
table state would contain a boolean to indicate whether a given set of 
state was valid.  You may need a grouping mechanism for this.   It 
probably makes sense to do this as separate tables.  For instance,

.fields = (VMStateField []) {
  VMSTATE_BOOL(td_hack, RTCState, (VMStateField[]){
       VMSTATE_INT32(irq_coalesced, RTCState),
       VMSTATE_INT32(period, RTCState),
       VMSTATE_END_OF_LIST()}),
}

If we can't maintain backwards compatibility using this approach (we 
definitely can't for rtc-td) then we'll just have to live with that.

I also think arrays should be expressed like this FWIW.  Today we have 
explicit typed arrays.  I would rather see:

.fields = (VMStateField []) {
 VMSTATE_ARRAY(nirq, PCIBus, (VMStateField[]) {
     VMSTATE_INT32(irq_count[0], PCIBus),
     VMSTATE_END_OF_LIST()}),
}