From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48539) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dDVee-0004Ih-LI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 May 2017 08:44:45 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dDVeZ-0000q9-63 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 May 2017 08:44:44 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:40565) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dDVeY-0000q2-VX for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 May 2017 08:44:39 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EF7315447 for ; Wed, 24 May 2017 12:44:37 +0000 (UTC) From: Markus Armbruster References: <20170517153812.21993-1-quintela@redhat.com> <20170517153812.21993-4-quintela@redhat.com> <87shjuphgr.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 14:44:33 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87shjuphgr.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> (Markus Armbruster's message of "Wed, 24 May 2017 14:28:04 +0200") Message-ID: <877f16o24u.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/5] migration: Remove use of old MigrationParams List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Juan Quintela Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, lvivier@redhat.com, dgilbert@redhat.com, peterx@redhat.com I got confused and replied to an old version. Please ignore. Markus Armbruster writes: > Juan Quintela writes: > >> We have change in the previous patch to use migration capabilities for >> it. Notice that we continue using the old command line flags from >> migrate command from the time being. Remove the set_params method as > > for the time being > >> now it is empty. >> >> For savevm, one can't do a: >> >> savevm -b/-i foo >> >> but now one can do: >> >> migrate_set_capability block on >> savevm foo >> >> And we can't use block migration. We could disable block capability >> unconditionally, but it would not be much better. > > I think I get what you're trying to say, but only because I have plenty > of context right now. Let me try to rephrase: > > migration: Use new configuration instead of old MigrationParams > > The previous commit introduced a MigrationCapability and a > MigrationParameter for block migration. Use them instead of the old > MigrationParams. > > Take care to reject attempts to combine block migration with > snapshots, e.g. like this: > > migrate_set_capability block on > savevm foo > >> Signed-off-by: Juan Quintela > > Preferably with a commit message I can still understand three weeks from > now: > Reviewed-by: Markus Armbruster