From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cooper Subject: Re: [PATCH Remus v3 3/3] libxc/restore: implement Remus checkpointed restore Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 08:19:20 +0100 Message-ID: <55544C78.9070700@citrix.com> References: <1431506101-29612-1-git-send-email-yanghy@cn.fujitsu.com> <1431506101-29612-4-git-send-email-yanghy@cn.fujitsu.com> <555378D3.5000800@citrix.com> <555435D3.8080106@cn.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <555435D3.8080106@cn.fujitsu.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Yang Hongyang , xen-devel@lists.xen.org Cc: wei.liu2@citrix.com, ian.campbell@citrix.com, wency@cn.fujitsu.com, guijianfeng@cn.fujitsu.com, yunhong.jiang@intel.com, eddie.dong@intel.com, rshriram@cs.ubc.ca, ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 14/05/2015 06:42, Yang Hongyang wrote: > >>> @@ -541,7 +618,27 @@ static int restore(struct xc_sr_context *ctx) >>> { >>> rc = read_record(ctx, &rec); >>> if ( rc ) >>> - goto err; >>> + { >>> + if ( ctx->restore.buffer_all_records ) >>> + goto err_buf; >> >> Please can we choose a label sufficiently different to "err". >> >> "resume_from_checkpoint" perhaps? > > I think "remus_failover" is better? If you don't have objections, I will > use it as the label. Fine by me. ~Andrew