* Laszlo Ersek (ler...@redhat.com) wrote:
> The interesting question is, what happens when you power down the VM on
> the destination host (= post migration), and launch it again there, from
> zero. In that case, the firmware executable file comes from the
> *destination host* (it was never persis
On 02/28/20 12:47, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 02/28/20 05:04, Andrew Fish wrote:
>> Given the above it seems like the 2 options are:
>> 1) Pad OVMF_CODE.fd to be very large so there is room to grow.
>
> There's already room to grow, *inside* OVMF_CODE.fd. As I've shown
> elsewhere in this thread, e
On 02/28/20 05:04, Andrew Fish wrote:
> Maybe I was overcomplicating this. Given your explanation I think the part
> I'm missing is OVMF is implying FLASH layout, in this split model, based on
> the size of the OVMF_CODE.fd and OVMF_VARS.fd. Given that if OVMF_CODE.fd
> gets bigger the variabl
: Andrew Fish ; de...@edk2.groups.io
>> Cc: berra...@redhat.com; qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Dr. David Alan Gilbert
>> ; zhoujianjay ; discuss
>> ; Alex Bennée ;
>> wuchenye1995
>> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] A problem with live migration of UEFI virtual
>> machi
> On Feb 26, 2020, at 1:42 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On 02/25/20 22:35, Andrew Fish wrote:
>
>> Laszlo,
>>
>> The FLASH offsets changing breaking things makes sense.
>>
>> I now realize this is like updating the EFI ROM without rebooting the
>> system. Thus changes in how
nongnu.org; Dr. David Alan Gilbert
> ; zhoujianjay ; discuss
> ; Alex Bennée ;
> wuchenye1995
> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] A problem with live migration of UEFI virtual
> machines
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On 02/25/20 22:35, Andrew Fish wrote:
>
> > Laszlo,
>
Hi Andrew,
On 02/25/20 22:35, Andrew Fish wrote:
> Laszlo,
>
> The FLASH offsets changing breaking things makes sense.
>
> I now realize this is like updating the EFI ROM without rebooting the
> system. Thus changes in how the new EFI code works is not the issue.
>
> Is this migration event visi
> On Feb 25, 2020, at 12:40 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On 02/25/20 19:56, Andrew Fish wrote:
>> Laszlo,
>>
>> If I understand this correctly is it not more complicated than just size. It
>> also assumes the memory layout is the same?
>
> Yes.
>
>> The legacy BIOS used fixe
Hi Andrew,
On 02/25/20 19:56, Andrew Fish wrote:
> Laszlo,
>
> If I understand this correctly is it not more complicated than just size. It
> also assumes the memory layout is the same?
Yes.
> The legacy BIOS used fixed magic address ranges, but UEFI uses dynamically
> allocated memory so add
Laszlo,
If I understand this correctly is it not more complicated than just size. It
also assumes the memory layout is the same? The legacy BIOS used fixed magic
address ranges, but UEFI uses dynamically allocated memory so addresses are not
fixed. While the UEFI firmware does try to keep S3 an
On 02/24/20 16:28, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 05:39:59PM +, Alex Bennée wrote:
>>
>> wuchenye1995 writes:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>We found a problem with live migration of UEFI virtual machines
>>>due to size of OVMF.fd changes.
>>>Specifically, the size of OVMF.
11 matches
Mail list logo
