Re: [PATCH 0/6] [VERY RFC] Migration Stream v2

[George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com>]

On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Andrew Cooper
<andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
> On 10/04/14 11:42, Ian Campbell wrote:
>> On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 19:28 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> Some design decisions have been take very deliberately (e.g. splitting the
>>> logic for PV and hvm migration) while others have been more along the lines of
>>> "I think its a sensible thing to do given a lack of any evidence/opinion to
>>> the contrary".
>> Is there some indication of which is which?
>
> Not really, given the clean rewrite, and also that it is only partially
> complete.
>
>>
>> Should we check in the desigh/spec which was previously posted as part
>> of this?
>
> I knew I forgot something...
>
> http://xenbits.xen.org/people/andrewcoop/domain-save-format-E.pdf


What did you imagine might constitute an "Optional" record?

Other than that, everything looks sensible so far -- but having only
save/restore of one guest type is the easy bit.  It's when you start
to have to multiplex across {PV, HVM, PVH} x {disk, network, remus}
that things are going to get more "interesting".

 -George