From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57660) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xr67V-00012f-FJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 09:20:39 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xr67P-0004NQ-AY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 09:20:33 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:37402) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xr67P-0004NC-2M for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 09:20:27 -0500 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id sAJEKQsJ006910 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 09:20:26 -0500 Message-ID: <546CA726.4090502@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 15:20:22 +0100 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1416254843-16859-1-git-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <1416254843-16859-3-git-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <546AE14E.7060606@redhat.com> <20141118074904.GA19745@redhat.com> <87y4r7o8dh.fsf@elfo.elfo> <20141119093320.GA26119@redhat.com> <87d28jo5yp.fsf@elfo.elfo> <20141119102136.GC26395@redhat.com> <878uj7o4ec.fsf@elfo.elfo> <20141119132851.GA27435@redhat.com> <546C9EC0.5000105@redhat.com> <87ioibmgx6.fsf@elfo.elfo> In-Reply-To: <87ioibmgx6.fsf@elfo.elfo> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/5] exec: qemu_ram_alloc_device, qemu_ram_resize List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: quintela@redhat.com Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, dgilbert@redhat.com, "Michael S. Tsirkin" On 19/11/2014 14:57, Juan Quintela wrote: > > Shipping a separate BIOS for different machine types is unrealistic and > > pointless. It would also be a good terrain for bug reports, unless you > > also do things like "forbid creating -device megasas-gen2 on 2.1 because > > it was introduced in 2.2". > > And I agree with that. If it got introduced on 2.2, it should not be > allowed on pc-2.1. It just makes things more complicated. We don't > have infrastructure to enforce that. And I am claining that is the > problem. We are just papering over this problem each time that it > happens. I honestely think that the only way to really fix > compatibility is enforcing that machine types are stable. right now > they are now, and we ended nothing it. Weird, I have bought this USB device last month and I plugged it into a two-year-old laptop. QEMU version = when did I last update firmware / buy hardware Machine type = when did I buy the computer I honestly think that you are talking out of design dogma, without really thinking through the consequences of the design. Paolo