On Thu, 2015-06-25 at 14:25 +0800, Yang Hongyang wrote: > Used by secondary to send it's dirty bitmap to primary under COLO.
This is the backchannel, right? It seems to me that this ought to be described more clearly as a separate stream in the opposite direction, rather than looking like just another record in the forward channel. Does the back channel not also need some sort of negotiation phase where we check both ends are compatible (i.e. like the forward channel's header). This might be easier than with the forward channel since you might assert that the versions must match exactly for COLO to be possible, that might not be true of some potential future user of the backchannel though. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
