|
From: | Michael R. Hines |
Subject: | Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/6] rdma: core logic |
Date: | Fri, 28 Jun 2013 10:00:38 -0400 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130329 Thunderbird/17.0.5 |
On 06/28/2013 09:28 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 28 June 2013 14:23, Michael R. Hines <address@hidden> wrote:I assume from the PACKED annotations (do we really need both, incidentally) that this is shared with either the guest or with another instance of QEMU. Are there definitely no endianness issues to deal with here?I have ntohl()/htonl() on the protocol headers, but I did not add them for the data portions of the protocol. Is endianess for the data a big issue when you are assume the migration is happening across identical CPU architectures?Well: * is that a reasonable assumption? (why?)
I would yes, because we're dealing raw guest RAM. Migration of memory would not work across a different architecture (particularly page tables - which would need to be canonicalized and de-canonicalized).
* if you try this on some setup where it's not true, do we fail helpfully or obscurely?
Shouldn't a check like that occur before the migration actually begins? Is this specific to RDMA?
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |