Re: [Xen-devel] [PULL] qemu-xen stable update to 1.6.2

[Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 17 Jan 2014, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 03:51:42PM +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Jan 2014, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 03:42:17PM +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 15 Jan 2014, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 2014-01-15 at 14:35 +0000, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 09:35:10AM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 18:52 +0000, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> > > > > > > > There is an update of QEMU 1.6, I have done a merge and put 
> > > > > > > > that in a tree:
> > > > > > > > git://xenbits.xen.org/people/aperard/qemu-dm.git  merge-1.6.2
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Based on the above I have no idea whether a freeze exception 
> > > > > > > should be
> > > > > > > granted for this, so my default answer is no. I'm not sure what 
> > > > > > > else you
> > > > > > > could have expected.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > If you think there are changes here which should be in 4.4.0 then 
> > > > > > > please
> > > > > > > enumerate all changes included in this merge which have any 
> > > > > > > relation to
> > > > > > > Xen and their potential impact on the release.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I have a list the change here that have a potential impact on Xen, 
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > the ones that I think are quite important at the beginning. Either 
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > commit title speak for itself or I added a small description on 
> > > > > > what is
> > > > > > affected.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks but there's not a lot here for me to go on WRT making a 
> > > > > decision
> > > > > on a freeze exception. Did you refer to 
> > > > > http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Xen_Roadmap/4.4#Exception_guidelines_for_after_the_code_freeze
> > > > > like I said? A freeze exception needs an analysis of benefits and 
> > > > > risks,
> > > > > not the very briefest words you can possibly manage.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Anyway it appears this is a grab bag of things we might want and misc
> > > > > fixes which are perhaps nice to have, I'm nowhere near comfortable
> > > > > giving it a blanket exemption based on what you've presented here, or
> > > > > even of cherry picking what might be the important ones. If you think
> > > > > any or all of it is actually important for 4.4 please make a proper 
> > > > > case
> > > > > for inclusion, either of the aggregate or of the individual changes.
> > > > 
> > > > Anthony, did you simply update the tree by pulling from the upstream 1.6
> > > > stable tree?
> > > 
> > > Yes, a simple merge.
> > > 
> > > > I also assume that you tested at the very least the basic
> > > > PV and HVM configurations?
> > > 
> > > :(, no, I haven't try PV. But I did try HVM.
> > > 
> > > There is one thing that I may want to try, it's migration from the
> > > previous version of Xen. There is one patch that change (fix?) that.
> > 
> > Please do and let me know if it works as expected.
> 
> I have tryied a pv guest, it does work fine.
> 
> I also try a migration (xl save/restore) from Xen 4.3.1 to Xen 4.4 with
> both the current qemu-xen tree and with the merge of 1.6.2, but the
> migration fail in both cases because of the same error reported by qemu.
> (Unknown savevm section or instance '0000:02.0/cirrus_vga' 0). I did not
> investigate in that. Might just be a issue with my compile script ...
> (using the wrong qemu-xen tree).

It is important that we identify what is the cause of the problem.
Especially if you think that it could be a "compile script" issue,
because I imagine that if it is, it might invalidate your previous
positive tests too.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel