From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38810) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dXBJ7-0006R2-HE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 15:03:52 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dXBJ6-0007jI-O7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 15:03:49 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:44530) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dXBJ6-0007ig-IE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 15:03:48 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7EBD1356D6 for ; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 19:03:47 +0000 (UTC) From: Juan Quintela In-Reply-To: <1500279971-13875-10-git-send-email-peterx@redhat.com> (Peter Xu's message of "Mon, 17 Jul 2017 16:26:09 +0800") References: <1500279971-13875-1-git-send-email-peterx@redhat.com> <1500279971-13875-10-git-send-email-peterx@redhat.com> Reply-To: quintela@redhat.com Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 21:03:47 +0200 Message-ID: <87h8yanawc.fsf@secure.laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 09/11] migration: provide migrate_caps_check() List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Xu Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Eduardo Habkost , Laurent Vivier , Markus Armbruster , "Dr . David Alan Gilbert" Peter Xu wrote: > Abstract helper function to check migration capabilities (from the old > qmp_migrate_set_capabilities). Prepare to be used somewhere else. > > There is side effect on the change: when applying the capabilities, we > were skipping the invalid ones, but still applying the valid ones (if > they are provided in the same QMP request). After this refactoring, > we'll ignore all the capabilities if we detected invalid setup along the > way. However, I don't think it is a problem since general users should > not provide anything invalid after all. > > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu Reviewed-by: Juan Quintela I think that the "caveat" that we used to set the valid capabilities in one message is just undefined behaviour. I preffer the new semmantics anyways.