From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60685) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eYydo-0003FN-AG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Jan 2018 13:28:53 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eYydl-000469-4k for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Jan 2018 13:28:52 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:60464) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eYydk-00043h-VR for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Jan 2018 13:28:49 -0500 From: Juan Quintela In-Reply-To: (Peter Maydell's message of "Tue, 9 Jan 2018 18:24:00 +0000") References: <20180103093834.20879-1-quintela@redhat.com> <87zi5soccd.fsf@secure.laptop> Reply-To: quintela@redhat.com Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2018 19:28:34 +0100 Message-ID: <87vagazy25.fsf@secure.laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 00/14] Migration pull request List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: Eric Blake , Laurent Vivier , QEMU Developers , Markus Armbruster , Peter Xu , Alexey , "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" Peter Maydell wrote: > On 5 January 2018 at 09:59, Juan Quintela wrote: >> Eric Blake wrote: >>> On 01/03/2018 03:38 AM, Juan Quintela wrote: >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> This are the changes for migration that are already reviewed. >>>> >>>> Please, apply. >>>> >>> >>>> Alexey Perevalov (6): >>>> migration: introduce postcopy-blocktime capability >>>> migration: add postcopy blocktime ctx into MigrationIncomingState >>>> migration: calculate vCPU blocktime on dst side >>>> migration: postcopy_blocktime documentation >>>> migration: add blocktime calculation into migration-test >>>> migration: add postcopy total blocktime into query-migrate >>> >>> I had unanswered questions about these patches in the v12 series, where >>> I'm not sure if the interface is still quite right. >> >> To be fair, I had alroady integrated the patches before I saw your questions. >> >>> We're still early >>> enough that we could adjust the interface after the fact depending on >>> how the questions are answered; >> >> I think this is the best approach, so far I can see two questions: >> >> - do we want to make it conditional? it requires some locking, but I >> haven't meassured it to see how slow/fast is it. >> >> - the other was documentation. >> >> I will like Alexey to answer. Depending of how slow it is, I can agree >> to make it non-optional. > > So have you come to a consensus on whether you'd like me to apply > this pull request or not ? My understanding is that you should apply it. We will add a documentation patch later. Later, Juan.