On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 02:36:11PM +0800, Li Zhijian wrote:
> Since we have disabled RDMA + postcopy, it's safe to remove
> the migration_in_postcopy() that follows the migration_rdma().
>
> Signed-off-by: Li Zhijian <lizhij...@fujitsu.com>
> ---
> migration/ram.c | 2 +-
> migration/rdma.c | 5 +++--
> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/migration/ram.c b/migration/ram.c
> index e07651aee8d..c363034c882 100644
> --- a/migration/ram.c
> +++ b/migration/ram.c
> @@ -1939,7 +1939,7 @@ static int ram_save_target_page(RAMState *rs,
> PageSearchStatus *pss)
> int res;
>
> /* Hand over to RDMA first */
> - if (migrate_rdma() && !migration_in_postcopy()) {
This line was just added in previous patch.
Would it be better move 5/6 above, then somehow squash 2/3/4/7 so that it
doesn't need to add something and got removed again? I feel like the four
patches can be squashed into 1 or 2 instead when reorder them.
> + if (migrate_rdma()) {
> res = rdma_control_save_page(pss->pss_channel, pss->block->offset,
> offset, TARGET_PAGE_SIZE);
>
> diff --git a/migration/rdma.c b/migration/rdma.c
> index c6876347e1e..0349dd4a8b8 100644
> --- a/migration/rdma.c
> +++ b/migration/rdma.c
> @@ -3826,7 +3826,7 @@ int rdma_block_notification_handle(QEMUFile *f, const
> char *name)
>
> int rdma_registration_start(QEMUFile *f, uint64_t flags)
> {
> - if (!migrate_rdma() || migration_in_postcopy()) {
> + if (!migrate_rdma()) {
> return 0;
> }
>
> @@ -3858,7 +3858,8 @@ int rdma_registration_stop(QEMUFile *f, uint64_t flags)
> RDMAControlHeader head = { .len = 0, .repeat = 1 };
> int ret;
>
> - if (!migrate_rdma() || migration_in_postcopy()) {
> + /* Hand over to RDMA first */
> + if (!migrate_rdma()) {
> return 0;
> }
>
> --
> 2.44.0
>
--
Peter Xu
