From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 --for 4.6 COLOPre 24/25] tools/libxl:
 move remus state into a seperate structure
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:28:42 +0100
Message-ID: <1436966922.32371.64.camel@citrix.com>
References: <1436946351-21118-1-git-send-email-yanghy@cn.fujitsu.com>
	<1436946351-21118-25-git-send-email-yanghy@cn.fujitsu.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <1436946351-21118-25-git-send-email-yanghy@cn.fujitsu.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Yang Hongyang <yanghy@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: wei.liu2@citrix.com, wency@cn.fujitsu.com, andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, yunhong.jiang@intel.com, eddie.dong@intel.com, xen-devel@lists.xen.org, guijianfeng@cn.fujitsu.com, rshriram@cs.ubc.ca, ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Wed, 2015-07-15 at 15:45 +0800, Yang Hongyang wrote:
> @@ -2921,6 +2911,26 @@ _hidden void libxl__checkpoint_devices_preresume(libxl__egc *egc,
>                                          libxl__checkpoint_devices_state *cds);
>  _hidden void libxl__checkpoint_devices_commit(libxl__egc *egc,
>                                          libxl__checkpoint_devices_state *cds);
> +
> +/*----- Remus related state structure -----*/
> +typedef struct libxl__remus_state libxl__remus_state;
> +struct libxl__remus_state {
> +    /* private */
> +    libxl__ev_time checkpoint_timeout; /* used for Remus checkpoint */
> +    int interval; /* checkpoint interval */
> +
> +    /* abstract layer */
> +    libxl__checkpoint_devices_state cds;

This mostly makes sense, I think, but this one field feels like it will
be wanted by colo too. Does that mean we will end up with dss->rs.cds
and dss->colo.cds doing effectively the same thing?

Ian.