From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BEB0C4332F for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2023 01:55:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1r2idn-00064F-BT; Mon, 13 Nov 2023 20:54:59 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1r2idl-000647-SF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 13 Nov 2023 20:54:57 -0500 Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de ([195.135.220.29]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1r2idk-0005Bb-2p for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 13 Nov 2023 20:54:57 -0500 Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D6861F86B; Tue, 14 Nov 2023 01:54:54 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1699926894; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=pBo53dKPw61h+01olNaP2zGU5ZjEfS9LF68JG6igfHQ=; b=elKYuBDcda7T6iIYD82w4qYbXulYIExaonv3icDJ+Et3toG/wh48B2q3666zIBnqEgZVbR 6r15T0+dyncR/iB8sNI88r6pKEmux70HqJF2Gd795qOwwJOmk2g1wCFmys3GFD5XDqiiVe HYRAK+Y5Sss7FQLCz+E7Od04aSvJFSE= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1699926894; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=pBo53dKPw61h+01olNaP2zGU5ZjEfS9LF68JG6igfHQ=; b=MJuaIBNx7R9KwVnr6TVacA2wjRv+SmpH0gSVl2l4P1VuIPOyf5IN20X0v3lkN6TJ8mWoEJ Xvg5z79wY5uu9gAw== Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10C32132F1; Tue, 14 Nov 2023 01:54:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id qYspM23TUmXfWQAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Tue, 14 Nov 2023 01:54:53 +0000 From: Fabiano Rosas To: Peter Xu Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Juan Quintela , Leonardo Bras , Philippe =?utf-8?Q?Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9?= Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] migration: Report error in incoming migration In-Reply-To: References: <20231109165856.15224-1-farosas@suse.de> <20231109165856.15224-2-farosas@suse.de> <87sf5dzxhj.fsf@suse.de> Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2023 22:54:51 -0300 Message-ID: <874jhp5cb8.fsf@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Received-SPF: pass client-ip=195.135.220.29; envelope-from=farosas@suse.de; helo=smtp-out2.suse.de X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Peter Xu writes: > On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 07:58:00AM -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote: >> Peter Xu writes: >> >> > On Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 01:58:55PM -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote: >> >> We're not currently reporting the errors set with migrate_set_error() >> >> when incoming migration fails. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Fabiano Rosas >> >> --- >> >> migration/migration.c | 7 +++++++ >> >> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) >> >> >> >> diff --git a/migration/migration.c b/migration/migration.c >> >> index 28a34c9068..cca32c553c 100644 >> >> --- a/migration/migration.c >> >> +++ b/migration/migration.c >> >> @@ -698,6 +698,13 @@ process_incoming_migration_co(void *opaque) >> >> } >> >> >> >> if (ret < 0) { >> >> + MigrationState *s = migrate_get_current(); >> >> + >> >> + if (migrate_has_error(s)) { >> >> + WITH_QEMU_LOCK_GUARD(&s->error_mutex) { >> >> + error_report_err(s->error); >> >> + } >> >> + } >> > >> > What's the major benefit of dumping this explicitly? >> >> This is incoming migration, so there's no centralized error reporting >> aside from the useless "load of migration failed: -5". If the code has >> not called error_report we just never see the error message. >> >> > And this is not relevant to the multifd problem, correct? >> >> Yes, I'm being sneaky. > > Trying to sneak one patch into a 2 patch series is prone to be exposed and > lose the effect. :-) > > I remember we had the verbose error before. Was that lost since some > commit? In all cases, feel free to post that separately if you think we > should get it back. > > The multifd fixes do not look like a regression either for this release. If > so, both of them may be better next release's material? People have complained about it on IRC and I hit it twice in a week. I would call it a regression. However, we _do_ have an indication that it might have been there all along since someone already tried to fix a very similar issue, maybe even the same one. So I'm fine with punting to the next release.