On 25/07/16 11:21, David Vrabel wrote: > On 21/07/16 18:17, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> The sending side shouldn't send any variable sized records which end up >> having >> zero content, but the receiving side will need to tolerate such records for >> compatibility purposes. >> >> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> >> --- >> CC: Ian Jackson <ian.jack...@eu.citrix.com> >> CC: Wei Liu <wei.l...@citrix.com> >> --- >> docs/specs/libxc-migration-stream.pandoc | 16 +++++++++++++++- >> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/docs/specs/libxc-migration-stream.pandoc >> b/docs/specs/libxc-migration-stream.pandoc >> index 31eba10..a90bc5d 100644 >> --- a/docs/specs/libxc-migration-stream.pandoc >> +++ b/docs/specs/libxc-migration-stream.pandoc >> @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ >> Andrew Cooper <<andrew.coop...@citrix.com>> >> Wen Congyang <<we...@cn.fujitsu.com>> >> Yang Hongyang <<hongyang.y...@easystack.cn>> >> -% Revision 1 >> +% Revision 2 >> >> Introduction >> ============ >> @@ -631,6 +631,10 @@ The set of valid records depends on the guest >> architecture and type. No >> assumptions should be made about the ordering or interleaving of >> independent records. Record dependencies are noted below. >> >> +Some records have an exactly specified size. Some records have variable >> size >> +depending on their content. A record with variable size which ends up being >> +zero should be omitted entirely from the stream by the sending side. > I disagree. I think the stream should include the records with the empty > content. This gives better consistency and does not require changes to > the stream.
There are already some which are properly omitted, like the vcpu records for offline vcpus. There is no point having empty records; omitting them is an optimisation which we absolutely shouldn't preclude. ~Andrew _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
