On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 08:33:01PM +0200, Juan Quintela wrote:
> "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" wrote:
> > * Peter Xu (pet...@redhat.com) wrote:
> >> There are some places that binded "return path" with postcopy. Let's be
> >> prepared for its usage even without postcopy. This patch mainly did this
> >>
"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" wrote:
> * Peter Xu (pet...@redhat.com) wrote:
>> There are some places that binded "return path" with postcopy. Let's be
>> prepared for its usage even without postcopy. This patch mainly did this
>> on source side.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Peter Xu
>> ---
>> standalone pat
* Peter Xu (pet...@redhat.com) wrote:
> There are some places that binded "return path" with postcopy. Let's be
> prepared for its usage even without postcopy. This patch mainly did this
> on source side.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Xu
> ---
> standalone patch isolated from the return path series. o
Peter Xu wrote:
> There are some places that binded "return path" with postcopy. Let's be
> prepared for its usage even without postcopy. This patch mainly did this
> on source side.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Xu
> ---
> standalone patch isolated from the return path series. ok to be picked
> up in
There are some places that binded "return path" with postcopy. Let's be
prepared for its usage even without postcopy. This patch mainly did this
on source side.
Signed-off-by: Peter Xu
---
standalone patch isolated from the return path series. ok to be picked
up in case one day we'll re-face the
