On 03/06/2012 11:12 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 06/03/2012 18:03, Anthony Liguori ha scritto:
I don't know how comfortable I feel about this.
You can't just remove a feature in flight. The guest is going to behave
differently in such a way that the host isn't expecting. Yes, it should
fail gr
Il 06/03/2012 18:03, Anthony Liguori ha scritto:
> I don't know how comfortable I feel about this.
>
> You can't just remove a feature in flight. The guest is going to behave
> differently in such a way that the host isn't expecting. Yes, it should
> fail gracefully, but nonetheless it will fail
On 03/06/2012 06:22 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
The guest must already be prepared to see SG_IO support
disappear from under its feet, for example if migration
refers to a block device on the source and file-based
storage on the destination; or more likely, if the source
kernel allows (gasp) SG_IO o
Il 06/03/2012 15:53, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
> > The guest must already be prepared to see SG_IO support
> > disappear from under its feet, for example if migration
> > refers to a block device on the source and file-based
> > storage on the destination; or more likely, if the source
> > ker
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 01:22:07PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> The guest must already be prepared to see SG_IO support
> disappear from under its feet, for example if migration
> refers to a block device on the source and file-based
> storage on the destination; or more likely, if the source
> ke
The guest must already be prepared to see SG_IO support
disappear from under its feet, for example if migration
refers to a block device on the source and file-based
storage on the destination; or more likely, if the source
kernel allows (gasp) SG_IO on a partition and the destination
does not. So
