Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] migration/vl: new -incoming config:* for early migration parameters

[Fabiano Rosas <farosas@suse.de>]

Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> writes:

> On Wed, Jun 03, 2026 at 11:50:53AM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 03, 2026 at 10:48:54AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>> > On Fri, May 29, 2026 at 10:15:35AM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
>> > > On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 07:01:50PM -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote:
>> > > > Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> writes:
>> > > > 
>> > > > > CI: https://gitlab.com/peterx/qemu/-/pipelines/2560168907
>> > > > >
>> > > > > This series introduces a generic way to specify migration parameters that
>> > > > > can be used even during the early boot phase of QEMU.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > One example use case that already existed is CPR-transfer / CPR-exec.
>> > > > > currently QEMU has a temporary global variable (incoming_mode) to achieve
>> > > > > this, but it's hard to understand and this hack bleeded into quite a few
>> > > > > places that we could have avoided.  The lines in patch 2 touched may
>> > > > > provide some idea.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > With a generic approach of setting migration parameters with cmdlines, we
>> > > > > can remove this hack meanwhile QEMU should be able to keep the CPR behavior
>> > > > > as before.  To CPR maintainers and reviewers: please have a closer look,
>> > > > > even better if it can be smoke tested, to see if this works for Oracle's
>> > > > > environment, TIA.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > The 1st patch implemented that new semantics.  It is straightforward: now
>> > > > > we can setup any migration parameter using an extra line of:
>> > > > >
>> > > > >   -incoming config:key1=value1,key2=value2,...
>
> snip
>
>> > > > - using "config:"
>> > > > 
>> > > > This makes it non-uniform with uri and channels which don't have a
>> > > > keyword in front of them. I guess I could live with it, but it seems
>> > > > odd. I see that it makes parsing way easier.
>> > > 
>> > > Yeah, having some identifier would be nice.  I wished channels also have
>> > > identifiers if we don't need to keep compatibility.
>> > 
>> > IMHO having a magic "config:" prefix is an anti-pattern because it
>> > involves custom command line parsing logic.
>> 
>> Yes, it's not elegant.  I wished we had something like this though when
>> introducing the cpr channels; right now anything wasn't "defer" or URI
>> implies it's a "channel"..
>> 
>> I also wanted to avoid introducing new cmdline parameters, so migration
>> incoming cmdlines can stick with the same option.  If there's better
>> suggestion please shoot.
>> 
>> > 
>> > Does "-incoming config" imply '-incoming defer' semantics or is it
>> > independent ?  
>> 
>> They're independent.  Examples:
>> 
>>  a) "-incoming config:* -incoming tcp:*", setup parameters for TCP incoming
>>     migration without further deferral
>> 
>>  b) "-incoming config:*" only, setup global parameters for a possible
>>     upcoming outgoing migration
>
> In that case they should definitely be independent command line
> options. The old "-incoming" design is already broken / limited
> in the non-'defer' case because it is hardcoded to use URI syntax
> which can't express all the address formats we accept in QAPI
> syntax. Adding more special cases onto -incoming just makes the
> bad situation even worse and is not a forward looking design.
>
> If we need the ability to specify migration parameters on the
> CLI, then as a starting point for the design, we should assume that
> -incoming does not exist, and design a complete solution from scratch
> that uses QAPI exclusively, both for addresses and configuration.
>
> As discussed before, IMHO the "migrate" and "migrate-incoming"
> commands need to accept both the address(s) and parameters/capabilities
> as inline data items rather than relying on pre-configured global state
> from the 'migrate-parameter' / 'migrate-capability' commands.
>
> If we did that modelling for 'migrate-incoming' then that modelling of
> command parmaeters could map directly to a new '-migrate-incoming'
> command line argument that accepted exactly the same data model.
>

Maybe a user creatable object would better fit this use case instead of
a new command. We could expose what is today MigrationParameters plus
the few compat options from migration_properties. It could work more or
less the same for the QMP migration commands, QMP set/get commands,
source and destination command lines, the compatibility use-case and the
debugging use-case.