On Mon, 23 May 2016 21:42:23 +0530 Amit Shah <amit.s...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On (Wed) 11 May 2016 [14:10:34], Greg Kurz wrote: > > On Wed, 11 May 2016 13:59:19 +0200 > > Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > On 04/05/2016 21:44, Greg Kurz wrote: > > > > QEMU has currently two ways to prevent migration to occur: > > > > - migration blocker when it depends on runtime state > > > > - VMStateDescription.unmigratable when migration is not supported at all > > > > > > > > This patch gathers all the logic into a single function to be called > > > > from > > > > both the savevm and the migrate paths. > > > > > > > > This fixes a bug with 9p, at least, where savevm would succeed and the > > > > following would happen in the guest after loadvm: > > > > > > > > $ ls /host > > > > ls: cannot access /host: Protocol error > > > > > > > > With this patch: > > > > > > > > (qemu) savevm foo > > > > Migration is disabled when VirtFS export path '/' is mounted in the > > > > guest > > > > using mount_tag 'host' > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kurz <gk...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > > --- > > > > > > > > Since there has been some activity on 9p again since a few weeks, maybe > > > > it > > > > is not too late for 2.6, if everybody agrees the fix is ok ? > > > > > > The patch is good, but I think the subject should be > > > > > > savevm: fail if migration blockers are present > > > > > > The subject you used would be good for the include/migration and > > > migration/migration.c parts alone (where you introduce the function > > > without any semantic change). > > > > > > > Yeah, I agree the subject you are suggesting is far more informative :) > > I'll apply this with the suggested subject. > > Please CC the migration maintainers for faster processing next time > around. > I had Cc'd Juan (who happens to be away) but I forgot your address... my bad :\ > Thanks, > > Amit > Cheers ! -- Greg
