On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 05:38:54PM -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote:
Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd(a)linaro.org> writes:
> "General command" (GEN_CMD, CMD56) is described as:
>
> GEN_CMD is the same as the single block read or write
> commands (CMD24 or CMD17). The difference is that [...]
> the data block is not a memory payload data but has a
> vendor specific format and meaning.
>
> Thus this block must not be stored overwriting data block
> on underlying storage drive. Keep it in a dedicated
> 'vendor_data[]' array.
>
> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd(a)linaro.org>
> Tested-by: Cédric Le Goater <clg(a)redhat.com>
> ---
> RFC: Is it safe to reuse VMSTATE_UNUSED_V() (which happens
> to be the same size)?
Hi, sorry it took some time to get to this, I had just left for vacation
when you first posted.
And I totally overlooked there's the email.. until you replied. Welcome
back.
I think it's ok:
{
"field": "unused",
"version_id": 1,
"field_exists": false,
"size": 512
},
vs.
{
"field": "vendor_data",
"version_id": 0,
"field_exists": false,
"num": 512,
"size": 1
},
The unused field was introduced in 2016 so there's no chance of
migrating a QEMU that old to/from 9.1.
What happens if an old qemu 9.0 sends rubbish here to a new QEMU, while the
new QEMU would consider it meaningful data?
--
Peter Xu