On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 07:17:59AM -0700, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Il 15/10/2013 15:51, Anthony Liguori ha scritto:
> >> From 41/43:
> >>
> >> "The interface is actually backwards-compatible with
> >> existing PIIX4 ACPI (though not migration compatible)."
> >>
> >> And does "AFAIK" translate to, "I have tested migration from new and
> >> old and old and new with this series"? I suspect the answer is no.
> >
> > Since when do we support migration from new to old?
>
> We allow it to break because we only send the newest version of things
> but we should try our best to avoid that from happening. That's why
> we have things like subsections.
>
> Regards,
>
> Anthony Liguori
>
> > Paolo
I addressed this using _TEST VMSTATE macros:
+static bool vmstate_test_use_acpi_pci_hotplug(void *opaque, int version_id)
+{
+ PIIX4PMState *s = opaque;
+ return s->use_acpi_pci_hotplug;
+}
+
+static bool vmstate_test_no_use_acpi_pci_hotplug(void *opaque, int version_id)
+{
+ PIIX4PMState *s = opaque;
+ return !s->use_acpi_pci_hotplug;
+}
+
use_acpi_pci_hotplug is set only for new machine.
Did you miss this during review or is something wrong with this?
--
MST
