On 10/05/2011 10:25 PM, Juan Quintela wrote:
Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 10/04/2011 09:49 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 09/23/2011 07:57 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
[ much more stuff ]
It avoids s==NULL checks,
In favor of s->state == MIG_STATE_NONE.
and it also avoids
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 10/04/2011 09:49 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
>> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>> On 09/23/2011 07:57 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
[ much more stuff ]
>> It avoids s==NULL checks,
>
> In favor of s->state == MIG_STATE_NONE.
>
>> and it also avoids having to have new
>> variables (
On 10/04/2011 09:49 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 09/23/2011 07:57 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
This cleans up a lot the code as we don't have to check anymore if
the variable is NULL or not.
We don't make it static, because when we integrate fault tolerance, we
can have seve
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 09/23/2011 07:57 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
>> This cleans up a lot the code as we don't have to check anymore if
>> the variable is NULL or not.
>>
>> We don't make it static, because when we integrate fault tolerance, we
>> can have several migrations at once.
>>
>> Sig
On 09/23/2011 07:57 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
This cleans up a lot the code as we don't have to check anymore if
the variable is NULL or not.
We don't make it static, because when we integrate fault tolerance, we
can have several migrations at once.
Signed-off-by: Juan Quintela
---
migration.c
This cleans up a lot the code as we don't have to check anymore if
the variable is NULL or not.
We don't make it static, because when we integrate fault tolerance, we
can have several migrations at once.
Signed-off-by: Juan Quintela
---
migration.c | 126 +--
This cleans up a lot the code as we don't have to check anymore if
the variable is NULL or not.
We don't make it static, because when we integrate fault tolerance, we
can have several migrations at once.
Signed-off-by: Juan Quintela
---
migration.c | 126 +--
