On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 06:21:20AM +0000, Zhijian Li (Fujitsu) wrote:
>
>
> On 25/02/2025 04:00, Peter Xu wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Yeah, it sound good to me.
> I tried to reorder the pathes and squash previous 2 3 4 to a single one
>
> So the new layout will be like below:
>
> e5b1998ad30 migration: Add qtest for migration over RDMA
> 9a1b87e2db6 migration: Unfold control_save_page() << this one squashed
> previous 2/3/4
> b6ccd49e934 migration/rdma: Remove redundant migration_in_postcopy checks
> c7c4209db6f migration: disable RDMA + postcopy-ram
> 0463b54d7f9 migration: Add migration_capabilities_and_transport_compatible()
> helper
> 21c76dcabee migration: Prioritize RDMA in ram_save_target_page()
I'll have another look when repost, but so far looks good, thanks.
--
Peter Xu
