"Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git)" <dgilb...@redhat.com> wrote:
> From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilb...@redhat.com>
>
> Postcopy doesn't support migration of RAM shared with another process
> yet (we've got a bunch of things to understand).
> Check for the case and don't allow postcopy to be enabled.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilb...@redhat.com>
> ---
> migration/postcopy-ram.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/migration/postcopy-ram.c b/migration/postcopy-ram.c
> index effbeb6..dc80dbb 100644
> --- a/migration/postcopy-ram.c
> +++ b/migration/postcopy-ram.c
> @@ -95,6 +95,19 @@ static bool ufd_version_check(int ufd)
> return true;
> }
>
> +/* Callback from postcopy_ram_supported_by_host block iterator.
> + */
> +static int test_range_shared(const char *block_name, void *host_addr,
> + ram_addr_t offset, ram_addr_t length, void
> *opaque)
Direct question for the name?
ram_range_is_shared?
> +{
> + if (qemu_ram_is_shared(qemu_ram_block_by_name(block_name))) {
> + error_report("Postcopy on shared RAM (%s) is not yet supported",
> + block_name);
> + return 1;
> + }
> + return 0;
> +}
Wow, we still predate use of bool for questions :-p
> +
> /*
> * Note: This has the side effect of munlock'ing all of RAM, that's
> * normally fine since if the postcopy succeeds it gets turned back on at the
> @@ -127,6 +140,11 @@ bool postcopy_ram_supported_by_host(void)
> goto out;
> }
>
> + /* We don't support postcopy with shared RAM yet */
> + if (qemu_ram_foreach_block(test_range_shared, NULL)) {
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> /*
> * userfault and mlock don't go together; we'll put it back later if
> * it was enabled.
As my comments are only aestetic,
Reviewed-by: Juan Quintela <quint...@redhat.com>
