Am 26.09.2017 um 12:21 hat Dr. David Alan Gilbert geschrieben: > * Kevin Wolf (kw...@redhat.com) wrote: > > Am 25.09.2017 um 17:27 hat Dr. David Alan Gilbert geschrieben: > > > > > Whatever you think the preferred way to set up postcopy migration is: > > > > > If > > > > > something worked before this patch and doesn't after it, that's a > > > > > regression and breaks backwards compatibility. > > > > > > > > > > If we were talking about a graceful failure, maybe we could discuss > > > > > whether carefully and deliberately breaking compatibility could be > > > > > justified in this specific case. But the breakage is neither mentioned > > > > > in the commit message nor is it graceful, so I can only call it a bug. > > > > > > > > > > Kevin > > > > > > > > It's of course my fault, I don't mean "it's wrong test, so it's not my > > > > problem") And I've already sent a patch. > > > > > > Why does this fail so badly, asserts etc - I was hoping for something > > > a bit more obvious from the migration code. > > > > > > postcopy did originally work without the destination having the flag on > > > but setting the flag on the destination was always good practice because > > > it detected whether the host support was there early on. > > > > So what does this mean for 2.11? Do you think it is acceptable breaking > > cases where the flag isn't set on the destination? > > I think so, because we've always recommended setting it on the > destination for the early detection.
Okay, I'll include the test case patch in my pull request today then. > > If so, just changing the test case is enough. But if not, I'd rather > > keep the test case as it is and fix only the migration code. > > I'd take the test case fix, but I also want to dig why it fails so > badly; it would be nice just to have a clean failure telling you > that postcopy was expected. Yes, that would be nice. Kevin
