Michael,
+static const VMStateDescription vmstate_acpi_compat = { + .name = "piix4_pm", + .version_id = 3, + .minimum_version_id = 2, + .minimum_version_id_old = 1, + .load_state_old = NULL, /* to avoid recursion */ + .post_load = vmstate_acpi_post_load, + .fields = (VMStateField[]) { + VMSTATE_PCI_DEVICE(parent_obj, PIIX4PMState), + VMSTATE_UINT16(ar.pm1.evt.sts, PIIX4PMState), + VMSTATE_UINT16(ar.pm1.evt.en, PIIX4PMState), + VMSTATE_UINT16(ar.pm1.cnt.cnt, PIIX4PMState), + VMSTATE_STRUCT(apm, PIIX4PMState, 0, vmstate_apm, APMState), + VMSTATE_TIMER(ar.tmr.timer, PIIX4PMState), + VMSTATE_INT64(ar.tmr.overflow_time, PIIX4PMState), + VMSTATE_STRUCT(ar.gpe, PIIX4PMState, 2, vmstate_gpe, ACPIGPE), + VMSTATE_STRUCT_TEST( + acpi_pci_hotplug.acpi_pcihp_pci_status[ACPI_PCIHP_BSEL_DEFAULT], + PIIX4PMState, + vmstate_test_no_use_acpi_pci_hotplug, + 2, vmstate_pci_status, + struct AcpiPciHpPciStatus), + VMSTATE_PCI_HOTPLUG(acpi_pci_hotplug, PIIX4PMState, + vmstate_test_use_acpi_pci_hotplug), + VMSTATE_END_OF_LIST() + } +}; +
Please don't duplicate code like this. What is the difference here? Is it just .minimum_version_id? Why not just update it in vmstate_acpi?
That and the change to load_state_old. I thought I had tried that, but that it got memcpy'd somewhere deep in QOM I think (as part of the inheritance). If the structure never gets used again (for e.g. export?) I suppose I could patch it live in acpi_load_old - is that what you meant? I'd also have to remove the 'const' tag, which I seem to remember was non-trivial. Perhaps I could make a copy and change the fields.
+/* NB cirrus-vga default value is 8MB anyway, save if we + * monkey patch it to change the default when the qemu-kvm-migration + * machine parameter is selected + */ +
This is too hacky for my taste. How about creating a new machine e.g. pc-qemu-kvm-1.0 and in pc_early_init_pci_1_0, changing compat_props for pc-1.0 to point to the compat_props of pc-qemu-kvm-1.0?
Hang on a second! v2 of this patch DID use a new virtual machine, called exactly that. I thought you were objecting to that and wanting a machine parameter instead! It's far easier with a new machine type, and I'd far prefer a new machine type. If you were just objecting to the fact that pc-1.0 was made to be an alias of either one or the other at compile time, simply drop the second patch of the v2 patchset. If we have a new machine type, I don't /think/ I need the early_init thing at all (I may be wrong about that). -- Alex Bligh