Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2023 16:29:47 -0800 From: Rob Wing <rob.fx907@gmail.com> To: Matthew Grooms <mgrooms@shrew.net> Cc: "virtualization@freebsd.org" <virtualization@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: BHYVE SNAPSHOT image format proposal Message-ID: <CAF3%2Bn_dLCKjrxjTnmqrDxe=E5O1_g7xc6o71fyXD47boKSoZxQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <d8bf3e94-fe71-6070-1a94-5012e7718a82@shrew.net> References: <67FDC8A8-86A6-4AE4-85F0-FF7BEF9F2F06@gmail.com> <6b98da58a5bd8e83bc466efa20b5a900298210aa.camel@FreeBSD.org> <8387AC83-6667-48E5-A3FA-11475EA96A5F@gmail.com> <d92db9bfbea181d6eb9d57b579d67e8e118ef4de.camel@FreeBSD.org> <986A83D8-E0E0-4030-9369-A5B3500E27C6@gmail.com> <79fabe94-b800-c713-48ea-518da1f74e4d@shrew.net> <CAF3%2Bn_cc5ZpGsKCff%2Bu-rSjnJn%2BN1jdu9KW0Y5b6n_TieMsfng@mail.gmail.com> <3973013d-c183-360f-d7ca-ca822859c23d@shrew.net> <CAF3%2Bn_czuJ=B2mok2wh7OPvkzMz7%2B9KRG8_NuCyEL9SMFLt6tw@mail.gmail.com> <3a037482-2e6c-667f-1979-d5b612e506ec@shrew.net> <CAF3%2Bn_cPr0=Z-KbN9R6BqxhcQrhckUqtoqg7LN=dUowAr64sRg@mail.gmail.com> <d8bf3e94-fe71-6070-1a94-5012e7718a82@shrew.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Saturday, July 15, 2023, Matthew Grooms <mgrooms@shrew.net> wrote: > > > I don't know how to state it more clearly: Making binary copies of the > data structures is the problem. Something tells me that you'll continue to > ignore this, so I'll stop saying it. Maybe this is where our disconnect is? Can you give me a pointer to the code for the data structures you're thinking of? When I say binary data, I'm thinking of the guest memory being saved.. Rob, I'm not hear to argue with you. Likewise, I don't feel like we are arguing..I look at this as trying to hash out a solution to the problem. I understand your stance is that the UPB patch solves the problem we're discussing. And I've given my reasons why the patch falls short. I've shared all the opinions I feel are relevant to the file format > proposal and would prefer not to waste the list's time. > I don't see how we are wasting the lists time. So far, we've stayed on topic and have kept it civil. [-- Attachment #2 --] On Saturday, July 15, 2023, Matthew Grooms <<a href="mailto:mgrooms@shrew.net">mgrooms@shrew.net</a>> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <br> I don't know how to state it more clearly: Making binary copies of the data structures is the problem. Something tells me that you'll continue to ignore this, so I'll stop saying it.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Maybe this is where our disconnect is?</div><div><br></div><div>Can you give me a pointer to the code for the data structures you're thinking of?</div><div><br></div><div>When I say binary data, I'm thinking of the guest memory being saved..</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> Rob, I'm not hear to argue with you.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Likewise, I don't feel like we are arguing..I look at this as trying to hash out a solution to the problem.</div><div><br></div><div>I understand your stance is that the UPB patch solves the problem we're discussing. And I've given my reasons why the patch falls short.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I've shared all the opinions I feel are relevant to the file format proposal and would prefer not to waste the list's time.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div> I don't see how we are wasting the lists time. So far, we've stayed on topic and have kept it civil.</div><div><br></div><div> </div>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAF3%2Bn_dLCKjrxjTnmqrDxe=E5O1_g7xc6o71fyXD47boKSoZxQ>