* Paolo Bonzini (pbonz...@redhat.com) wrote:
> Il 03/10/2014 19:47, Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git) ha scritto:
> > +/* Source side RP state */
> > +struct MigrationRetPathState {
> > + uint32_t latest_ack;
> > + QemuThread rp_thread;
> > + bool error;
>
> Should the QemuFile be in here?
Yes, done.
> > +};
> > +
>
> Also please do not abbrev words, and add a typedef that matches the
> struct if it is useful. If it is not, just embed the struct without
> giving the type a name (struct { } rp_state).
Done.
>
> > +static bool migration_already_active(MigrationState *ms)
> > +{
> > + switch (ms->state) {
> > + case MIG_STATE_ACTIVE:
> > + case MIG_STATE_SETUP:
> > + return true;
> > +
> > + default:
> > + return false;
> > +
> > + }
> > +}
>
> Should CANCELLING also be considered active? It is on the source->dest
> path.
Hmm, possibly - but my intention here was just to round up all of the
places that already checked for ACTIVE+SETUP so that I could add
POSTCOPY_ACTIVE;
only one of those places also checked for CANCELLING, so I left it out.
> > +static void await_outgoing_return_path_close(MigrationState *ms)
> > +{
> > + /*
> > + * If this is a normal exit then the destination will send a SHUT and
> > the
> > + * rp_thread will exit, however if there's an error we need to cause
> > + * it to exit, which we can do by a shutdown.
> > + * (canceling must also shutdown to stop us getting stuck here if
> > + * the destination died at just the wrong place)
> > + */
> > + if (qemu_file_get_error(ms->file) && ms->return_path) {
> > + qemu_file_shutdown(ms->return_path);
> > + }
>
> As mentioned early, I think it's simpler to let these function handle
> themselves the case where there is no return path, and call them
> unconditionally.
I still need to think about that.
Dave
--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
