qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 0/6] migration: s390x css migration


From: Christian Borntraeger
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 0/6] migration: s390x css migration
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 10:01:36 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.0

On 07/11/2017 04:54 PM, Halil Pasic wrote:
> Like for v2 the scope of this patch series is now limited to decoupling
> channel subsystem migration from the migration of virtio-ccw proxies.
> 
> There wasn't a whole lot of criticism regarding v2, so very little
> changed since then. All issues identified in the previous round were
> addressed as agreed upon. I hope this series is now good for 2.10.
> 
> @Dave You helped me quite a lot with these, thanks a lot! I could not
> find any r-b's or similar form you so if you would like to take the
> well deserved credit for your work...
> 
> v2 --> v3:
> * rebased onto current master, since 's390x: vmstatify config migration
>   for virtio-ccw' is already there we don't need it here any more
> * added ack's and r-b'
> * got rid of loads of nits (thanks Connie and Thomas)
> * added explanation why certain members are not migrated
> 
> v1 --> v2:
> * Split out the vmystatify virtio-ccw part, reorganize
> * Use WITH_TMP instead of one-shot VMStateInfo's
> 
> Halil Pasic (6):
>   s390x: add helper get_machine_class
>   s390x: add css_migration_enabled to machine class
>   s390x/css: add missing css state conditionally
>   s390x/css: add ORB to SubchDev
>   s390x/css: activate ChannelSubSys migration
>   s390x/css: use SubchDev.orb
> 
>  hw/intc/s390_flic.c                |  20 ++++++
>  hw/s390x/css.c                     | 144 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>  hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.c         |  58 +++++++++------
>  include/hw/s390x/css.h             |  11 ++-
>  include/hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.h |   7 ++
>  5 files changed, 199 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)

Can you clarify what test you have done regarding compatibility migrations to 
2.9 and earlier?




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]