From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Yang Hongyang <yanghy@cn.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 COLO 02/15] secondary vm
 suspend/resume/checkpoint code
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 10:10:52 +0800
Message-ID: <557E342C.9020007@cn.fujitsu.com>
References: <1433735159-26739-1-git-send-email-yanghy@cn.fujitsu.com>	<1433735159-26739-3-git-send-email-yanghy@cn.fujitsu.com>	<20150612142334.GS14606@zion.uk.xensource.com>
	<21882.61946.360624.328694@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <21882.61946.360624.328694@mariner.uk.xensource.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: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Cc: ian.campbell@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
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

Hi Ian J, Wei,

On 06/12/2015 10:51 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Wei Liu writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v6 COLO 02/15] secondary vm suspend/resume/checkpoint code"):
>> On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 11:45:46AM +0800, Yang Hongyang wrote:
>>> From: Wen Congyang <wency@cn.fujitsu.com>
>>> +    crcs->status = LIBXL_COLO_RESUMED;
>>> +
>>> +    /* avoid calling libxl__xc_domain_restore_done() more than once */
>>> +    if (crs->saved_cb) {
>>> +        dcs->callback = crs->saved_cb;
>>> +        crs->saved_cb = NULL;
>>
>> I have a feeling that this trick should be avoided. But I'm not an
>> expert on this so I will defer judgement to Ian J.
>
> Yes, this trick should be avoided.  It will make the resulting
> control flow very confusing.

I agree that this part is a bit of tricky. I will try to find another
way to do this. Maybe add another state variable to indicate what stage
we are in, the first boot or under checkpoint.

>
> Ian.
> .
>

-- 
Thanks,
Yang.