On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 10:11:13AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 1 August 2017 at 10:41, Peter Maydell <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 1 August 2017 at 10:35, KONRAD Frederic <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 08/01/2017 11:30 AM, Edgar E. Iglesias wrote: > >>> At this stage, perhaps we should just register the blocker when this dev > >>> realizes. > >>> > >>> If a request_ptr comes in during migration, the VM will fail either way... > > > >> Yes but this will breaks migration for the spips device everytime > >> and not only when mmio-execution is used? > > > > This line of thought is why I ended up suggesting just disabling > > the exec-in-place feature -- that way we just don't introduce > > what would be a new-in-2.10 feature, rather than breaking something > > that used to work in 2.9. > > OK, so what's the plan here? We have several options: > * just disable exec-from-spips for 2.10 (I sent a patch for that) > * disable exec-from-spips for 2.10 but with a device x-property > to allow the user to turn it on again if they really want it > * this patch or variants on it which try to only disable > migration if exec-from-spips is actually used by the guest > (I don't like these because of the awkward corner cases if > migration and the guest using exec-from-spips happen at the > same time) > > So my current view remains "we should just disable this feature > for 2.10 and we can implement it properly with handling of > migration for 2.11", unless somebody cares enough to implement > the x-property thing within the next day or so.
Hi Peter, I think the x-property sounds good. Fred, would you like to send a patch for that? Otherwise, I can do it later today. Cheers, Edgar
