* Peter Xu (pet...@redhat.com) wrote: > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 06:40:06PM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git) wrote: > > [...] > > > The precopy flow is: > > active->pre-switchover->device->completed > > > > The postcopy flow is: > > active->pre-switchover->postcopy-active->completed > > The naming is still slightly confusing to me: > > (1) we have a capability called "pause-before-switchover", so it feels > like there is something called "switchover" and if we enable this > we'll pause before that point; > > (2) we have a new status "pre-switchover", it feels like that's the > point before we are in "switchover" state; > > (3) we don't really have a "switchover" state, but instead it's called > "device" which is exactly the "switchover" action. > > Considering (1) and (2), I would prefer "device" state to be just > "switchover"...
Yes I stuck to pause-before-device and device originally; but what we're doing during the 'device' stage is mostly saving device state; the actual switchover occurs at the end. So hmm. > Further, not sure we can unify the state transition as well (say, we > add this switchover state even without cap "pause-before-switchover" > set, although it does not make much sense itself). Then, we can also > unify the precopy/postcopy state machine into one: > > active-> > [pre-switchover->] (optional, decided by "pause-before-switchover") > switchover-> > [postcopy-active->] (optional, decided by "postcopy-arm") > completed I didn't want to change the state transition behaviour without the capability set, since that could upset an existing libvirt that would get confused by the new state. Dave > (Sorry I am discussing the naming again instead of reviewing real > stuff!) > > -- > Peter Xu -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
