Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> wrote:
> When reaching here if we are still "active" it means we must be in colo
> state. Assert it instead of check it in if condition.
I don't think so.
> Finally I want to use "switch" here rather than lots of complicated if
> clauses.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com>
> ---
> migration/migration.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/migration/migration.c b/migration/migration.c
> index 4de3b551fe..0ee4b4c27c 100644
> --- a/migration/migration.c
> +++ b/migration/migration.c
> @@ -2309,7 +2309,8 @@ 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 want to run this code iff:
- we are in ACTIVE state
- we are using colo
We can be doing a normal migration, with colo compliled in, but not
enabled, no?
Later, Juan.
> + assert(enable_colo);
> migrate_start_colo_process(s);
> qemu_savevm_state_cleanup();
> /*
