On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 04:00:36PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 01:25:38PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 11:14:14AM +0200, Juan Quintela wrote: > > > Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> 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). > > > > > > > > I am not familiar with how we deal with savevm/migration errors, so I > > > > don't know what's best here. Juan, do you have any suggestions? > > > > > > > > > CHange unmigratable to Error * and add the message there? First one > > > wins (or a way to combine them?). > > > > > > Really I don't have a better idea. > > > > My first question is: why migrate_add_blocker() doesn't affect savevm? > > On which cases does it make sense to block migration only, and on which > > cases does it make sense to block migration and savevm? > > Can't see any case in which blocking only migration makes sense. > > 1) savevm on source > 2) loadvm on destination > > Is similar to migration regarding the state thats available on > destination.
That's how it looks like to me. But I don't know if there are other use cases of savevm I am ignoring. -- Eduardo
