Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy writes:
> On 10.10.24 17:30, Fabiano Rosas wrote:
>> Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy writes:
>>
>>> On 09.10.24 23:53, Fabiano Rosas wrote:
Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy writes:
> On 30.09.24 17:07, Andrey Drobyshev wrote:
>> On 9/30/24 12:25 PM, Vlad
On 10.10.24 17:30, Fabiano Rosas wrote:
Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy writes:
On 09.10.24 23:53, Fabiano Rosas wrote:
Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy writes:
On 30.09.24 17:07, Andrey Drobyshev wrote:
On 9/30/24 12:25 PM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
[add migration maintainers]
On 24
Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy writes:
> On 09.10.24 23:53, Fabiano Rosas wrote:
>> Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy writes:
>>
>>> On 30.09.24 17:07, Andrey Drobyshev wrote:
On 9/30/24 12:25 PM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> [add migration maintainers]
>
> On 24.09.24 15:56,
On 09.10.24 23:53, Fabiano Rosas wrote:
Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy writes:
On 30.09.24 17:07, Andrey Drobyshev wrote:
On 9/30/24 12:25 PM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
[add migration maintainers]
On 24.09.24 15:56, Andrey Drobyshev wrote:
[...]
I doubt that this a correct way to
Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy writes:
> On 30.09.24 17:07, Andrey Drobyshev wrote:
>> On 9/30/24 12:25 PM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>>> [add migration maintainers]
>>>
>>> On 24.09.24 15:56, Andrey Drobyshev wrote:
[...]
>>>
>>> I doubt that this a correct way to go.
>>>
>>> As far
On 30.09.24 17:07, Andrey Drobyshev wrote:
On 9/30/24 12:25 PM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
[add migration maintainers]
On 24.09.24 15:56, Andrey Drobyshev wrote:
[...]
I doubt that this a correct way to go.
As far as I understand, "inactive" actually means that "storage is not
belo
On 9/30/24 12:25 PM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> [add migration maintainers]
>
> On 24.09.24 15:56, Andrey Drobyshev wrote:
>> [...]
>
> I doubt that this a correct way to go.
>
> As far as I understand, "inactive" actually means that "storage is not
> belong to qemu, but to someone el
[add migration maintainers]
On 24.09.24 15:56, Andrey Drobyshev wrote:
Instead of throwing an assert let's just ignore that flag is already set
and return. We assume that it's going to be safe to ignore. Otherwise
this assert fails when migrating a paused VM back and forth.
Ideally we'd like
Instead of throwing an assert let's just ignore that flag is already set
and return. We assume that it's going to be safe to ignore. Otherwise
this assert fails when migrating a paused VM back and forth.
Ideally we'd like to have a more sophisticated solution, e.g. not even
scan the nodes which
