On 16 October 2015 at 08:52, Pavel Fedin wrote:
> Hello!
>
>> But this is the GICv2 code. Unless there are kernels out in the wild
>> which support v2 but not migration, there's no need to check
>> for that situation here.
>
> Such kernels do exist for sure, otherwise why do we have
kvm_gic_can_
Hello!
> But this is the GICv2 code. Unless there are kernels out in the wild
> which support v2 but not migration, there's no need to check
> for that situation here.
Such kernels do exist for sure, otherwise why do we have
kvm_gic_can_save_restore() at all? I remember even you pointed me at
On 16 October 2015 at 07:40, Pavel Fedin wrote:
> Hello!
>
>> What kernel are you running that doesn't support state save/restore
>> in the GICv2 implementation?
>
> I am not running such an old kernel. Just realized that GICv3 will need
> something similar, and actually GICv2 needs it too.
>
Hello!
> What kernel are you running that doesn't support state save/restore
> in the GICv2 implementation?
I am not running such an old kernel. Just realized that GICv3 will need
something similar, and actually GICv2 needs it too.
Actually this idea came to me when i occasionally tried to mi
On 15 October 2015 at 13:45, Pavel Fedin wrote:
> Currently, if the kernel does not have live migration API, the migration
> will still be attempted, but vGIC save/restore functions will just not do
> anything. This will result in a broken machine state.
>
> This patch fixes the problem by patchin
Currently, if the kernel does not have live migration API, the migration
will still be attempted, but vGIC save/restore functions will just not do
anything. This will result in a broken machine state.
This patch fixes the problem by patching vmstate_gic.unmigratable flag in
runtine.
Signed-off-by
