From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38332)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <quintela@redhat.com>) id 1eWeZl-00047j-9X
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 03 Jan 2018 03:39:06 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <quintela@redhat.com>) id 1eWeZi-0006NK-1K
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 03 Jan 2018 03:39:05 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:42524)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <quintela@redhat.com>) id 1eWeZh-0006Ma-SF
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 03 Jan 2018 03:39:01 -0500
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com
	[10.5.11.12])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB2AF2C96F4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Wed,  3 Jan 2018 08:39:00 +0000 (UTC)
From: Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20180103054043.25719-2-peterx@redhat.com> (Peter Xu's message of
	"Wed, 3 Jan 2018 13:40:33 +0800")
References: <20180103054043.25719-1-peterx@redhat.com>
	<20180103054043.25719-2-peterx@redhat.com>
Reply-To: quintela@redhat.com
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2018 09:38:52 +0100
Message-ID: <87a7xv49r7.fsf@secure.laptop>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 01/11] migration: assert colo instead of
 check
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Laurent Vivier <lvivier@redhat.com>, "Dr . David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>

Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> wrote:
> When reaching here if we are still "active" it means we must be in colo
> state.  Assert it instead of check it in if condition.

I don't think so.

> Finally I want to use "switch" here rather than lots of complicated if
> clauses.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
> ---
>  migration/migration.c | 3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/migration/migration.c b/migration/migration.c
> index 4de3b551fe..0ee4b4c27c 100644
> --- a/migration/migration.c
> +++ b/migration/migration.c
> @@ -2309,7 +2309,8 @@ static void *migration_thread(void *opaque)
>          }
>          runstate_set(RUN_STATE_POSTMIGRATE);
>      } else {
> -        if (s->state == MIGRATION_STATUS_ACTIVE && enable_colo) {
> +        if (s->state == MIGRATION_STATUS_ACTIVE) {

We want to run this code iff:
- we are in ACTIVE state
- we are using colo

We can be doing a normal migration, with colo compliled in, but not
enabled, no?

Later, Juan.


> +            assert(enable_colo);
>              migrate_start_colo_process(s);
>              qemu_savevm_state_cleanup();
>              /*