[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [qemu-s390x] [RFC PATCH v2 1/1] s390x/css: unrestrict cssids
From: |
Dong Jia Shi |
Subject: |
Re: [qemu-s390x] [RFC PATCH v2 1/1] s390x/css: unrestrict cssids |
Date: |
Thu, 30 Nov 2017 11:29:58 +0800 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
* Cornelia Huck <address@hidden> [2017-11-29 12:47:47 +0100]:
[...]
> > With this patch
> > ===============
> >
> > ------------+---------------+-------------
> > | squashing off | squashing on
> > ------------+---------------+-------------
> > auto id | F | F
> > ------------+---------------+-------------
> > explicit id | S' | S
> > ------------+---------------+-------------
> >
> > T5. squashing off + auto id
> > qemu-system-s390x: Unknown savevm section or instance
> > '/fe.0.0003/virtio-rng' 0
> > qemu-system-s390x: load of migration failed: Invalid argument
> > [Fail due to busid mismatch.]
> >
> > T6. squashing off + explicit given id
> > qemu-system-s390x: vmstate: get_nullptr expected VMS_NULLPTR_MARKER
> > qemu-system-s390x: Failed to load s390_css:css
> > qemu-system-s390x: error while loading state for instance 0x0 of device
> > 's390_css'
> > qemu-system-s390x: load of migration failed: Invalid argument
> > [Setting vfio-ccw.devno=non-fe.x.xxxx. (same as T1)
> > Fail due to css mismatch - there is no css 0 in the new vm.]
> >
> > Succeed.
> > [Setting vfio-ccw.devno=fe.x.xxxx.]
>
> Don't you need to attach the vfio-ccw device later anyway? You have to
> detach it from the source before you migrate, and I'd expect it to be
> symmetric.
Yes. After migrate, there is no problem to device_add the vfio-ccw
device (id=vfio0,devno=fe.x.xxxx). The result (succeed for this case)
does not change.
>
> >
> > T7. squashing on + auto id
> > qemu-system-s390x: Unknown savevm section or instance
> > '/00.0.0003/virtio-rng' 0
> > qemu-system-s390x: load of migration failed: Invalid argument
> > [Fail due to busid mismatch.]
> >
> > T8. squashing on + explicit given id
> > Succeed.
> >
> >
> > Notice:
> > The differences of the test results between w and w/o this patch are in
> > the "squashing off" cases. I think these are things that we can accept.
>
> Yes, I think that makes sense. If you want reliable migration, you need
> to be specific with your ids. I'd just don't want us to break things
> explicitly.
>
Fair enough. Got the message.
--
Dong Jia Shi