Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Don't use QEMU_VERSION in ATA/ATAPI replies to IDENTIFY cmds

[Marc Bevand]

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 6:40 PM, Glauber Costa <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> given this info you just provided, this is probably a non-issue. After
> all, if you're
> changing so much things in your guest, you _are_ changing your machine in 
> every
> way that matters to the O.S. So if the O.S. is sucky enough to require
> those kind of activations, we should ultimately respect it.

Consider this scenario: I change the MAC and the host at some point;
no reactivation required. 10 months later I simply upgrade QEMU from
0.9.0 to 0.9.1 and change nothing else; reactivation is required. This
is not something an enduser would expect.

Another way to see it is that I was in control of the MAC and host
change, but not of the IDENTIFY replies. An enduser should always be
in control of the "hardware changes" he makes to a guest.

Also, I believe (but am not sure) that if I had installed Windows on
QEMU version A and upgraded to version B to C to D, then Windows would
require reactivation after the upgrade to D because it would be seen
as the 3rd "hardware change".

-- 
Marc Bevand