Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 6 June 2017 at 03:51, David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote: >> From: Laurent Vivier <lviv...@redhat.com> >> >> We can replace the four remaining calls of register_savevm() by >> calls to register_savevm_live(). So we can remove the function and >> as we don't allocate anymore the ops pointer with g_new0() >> we don't have to free it then. >> >> Signed-off-by: Laurent Vivier <lviv...@redhat.com> >> Reviewed-by: Juan Quintela <quint...@redhat.com> >> Signed-off-by: David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> >> --- >> hw/net/vmxnet3.c | 8 ++++++-- >> hw/s390x/s390-skeys.c | 9 +++++++-- >> hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.c | 8 ++++++-- >> include/migration/vmstate.h | 8 -------- >> migration/savevm.c | 16 ---------------- >> slirp/slirp.c | 8 ++++++-- >> 6 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-) > > Great to see register_savevm() finally disappearing. > > Any chance of an update to docs/migration.txt, which still > mentions register_savevm(), but on the other hand doesn't > say anything about register_savevm_live() and unregister_savevm(). > (Doc comments in the .h file for those functions would be > nice too...)
Ok, will take a look. > Things that would be interesting to explain/document: > * what is special about vmxnet3 that makes it the only pci device > that needs to use this rather than having a vmstate struct? Will take a look. vmxnet3 used to be a mess (in relation to migration). > * why does s390-skeys call the register function with a NULL > pointer but the unregister pointer with a device pointer? No clue, will left that > (Could we replace the uses of these which pass a dev pointer > with vmstate structs and then drop the dev parameter?) Not sure, have to take a look. Thanks, Juan.
