Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 01/13] migration: assert colo instead of check

[Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>]

Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> wrote:
> When reaching here if we are still "active" it means we must be in colo
> state.  After a quick discussion offlist, we decided to use the safer
> error_report().
>
> Finally I want to use "switch" here rather than lots of complicated if
> clauses.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>

Reviewed-by: Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>



> ---
>  migration/migration.c | 10 +++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/migration/migration.c b/migration/migration.c
> index 4de3b551fe..5a12738447 100644
> --- a/migration/migration.c
> +++ b/migration/migration.c
> @@ -2309,7 +2309,15 @@ 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 should really assert here, but since it's during
> +             * migration, let's try to reduce the usage of assertions.
> +             */
> +            if (!enable_colo) {
> +                error_report("%s: critical error: calling COLO code without "
> +                             "COLO enabled", __func__);

I will put on the error message something like:

"%s: critical error: State ACTIVE without COLO being enable.  That is
forbidden/imposible".

And then you don't need the previous comment?

Later, Juan.


> +            }
>              migrate_start_colo_process(s);
>              qemu_savevm_state_cleanup();
>              /*