On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 00:51:18 +0000 David Matlack <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2026-02-26 05:00 PM, Alex Williamson wrote: > > On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 21:24:57 +0000 > > David Matlack <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > - vdev->reset_works = !ret; > > > pci_save_state(pdev); > > > vdev->pci_saved_state = pci_store_saved_state(pdev); > > > > Isn't this a problem too? In the first kernel we store the initial, > > post reset state of the device, now we're storing some arbitrary state. > > This is the state we're restore when the device is closed. > > The previous kernel resets the device and restores it back to its > post reset state in vfio_pci_liveupdate_freeze() before handing off > control to the next kernel. So my intention here is that VFIO will > receive the device in that state, allowing it to call > pci_store_saved_state() here to capture the post reset state of the > device again. > > Eventually we want to drop the reset in vfio_pci_liveupdate_freeze() and > preserve vdev->pci_saved_state across the Live Update. But I was hoping > to add that in a follow up series to avoid this one getting too long. I appreciate reviewing this in smaller chunks, but how does userspace know whether the kernel contains a stub implementation of liveupdate or behaves according to the end goal? Also, didn't we violate our own contract in this patch by adding the reset_works field to the serialization data without updating the compatibility string? Thanks, Alex
