On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 10:51:28PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:55:01PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 11:39:20AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > > > > Migration blocker is redudant: blocking savevm is sufficient. > > > > > > > Removing the redundancy looks welcome, but at the same time the > > migrate_add_blocker() call ensured we had a clearer error message (I > > mean: if we did mention invtsc in the error message, which we still > > don't, but should). > > Agree the error message should provide further information. > > For savevm its not possible, without further changes, to > improve error message. > > Do you want to maintain migration blocker to provide > the additional "blocked by invtsc feature of CPU device" > or do you want to remove migration blocker and have > "blocked by CPU device" ? >
Having migration blocked by a CPU feature is something we never did before and likely to surprise a few users. So I believe a clearer error message mentioning invtsc is worth the extra code. -- Eduardo
