On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 03:44:54PM +0530, Prasad Pandit wrote: > Hello Peter, > > On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 at 19:10, Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> wrote: > > IMHO it's better we debug and fix all the issues before merging this one, > > otherwise we may overlook something. > > * Well we don't know where the issue is, not sure where the fix may go > in, ex. if the issue turns out to be how virsh(1) invokes > migrate-postcopy, fix may go in virsh(1). Patches in this series > anyway don't help to fix the migration convergence issue, so they > could be reviewed independently I guess.
I still think we should find a complete solution before merging anything, because I'm not 100% confident the issue to be further investigated is irrelevant to this patch. No strong opinions, I'll leave that to Michael to decide. > > > You could pass over the patch to whoever going to debug this, so it will be > > included in the whole set to be > > posted when the bug is completely fixed. > > * Yes, this patch series is linked there. > > > The protocol should have no restriction on the thread model of a front-end. > > It only describes the wire protocol. > > > > IIUC the protocol was designed to be serialized by nature (where there's no > > request ID, so we can't match reply to any of the previous response), then > > the front-end can manage the threads well to serialize all the requests, > > like using this rwlock. > > * I see, okay. The simple protocol definition seems to indicate that > it is meant for one front-end/back-end pair. If we are dividing the > front-end across multiple threads, maybe we need a document to > describe those threads and how they work, at least for the QEMU > (front-end) side. Because the back-end could be a non-QEMU process, we > can not do much there. (just thinking) IMHO that's not part of the protocol but impl details, so the current doc looks all fine to me. Thanks, -- Peter Xu
