* Peter Xu ([email protected]) wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:49:45AM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > > * Peter Xu ([email protected]) wrote: > > > Now when network down for postcopy, the source side will not fail the > > > migration. Instead we convert the status into this new paused state, and > > > we will try to wait for a rescue in the future. > > > > > > If a recovery is detected, migration_thread() will reset its local > > > variables to prepare for that. > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <[email protected]> > > > > That's still OK; you might want to consider reusing the 'pause_sem' that I > > added to MigrationStatus for the other pause case. > > Yes I can. I am just a bit worried about how these two different > features cross-affect each other. Say, what if something tries to > execute "migrate-continue" during a postcopy network failure? IMHO it > should not be allowed, but we don't yet have a protection so far. > > So I would prefer to still separate these two semaphores.
Yes, that's fair enough; the semantics might be different enough that they don't quite fit - but worth keeping in mind. > Though I found that I can move init/destroy of the two new semaphores > (postcopy_pause_sem, postcopy_pause_rp_sem) into object init/destroy > just like what we did for pause_sem, which seems to be cleaner. I > hope I can still keep your r-b if I do that small change. Thanks, Yes, I think that's OK. Dave > -- > Peter Xu -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / [email protected] / Manchester, UK
