* Paolo Bonzini (pbonz...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
>
> On 06/10/2016 21:01, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> >> >> +} else if (field->flags & VMS_LINKED) {
> >> >> +ret = field->info->get(f, addr, size, field);
> >> >> } else {
> >> >>
On 06/10/2016 21:01, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
>> >> +} else if (field->flags & VMS_LINKED) {
>> >> +ret = field->info->get(f, addr, size, field);
>> >> } else {
>> >> ret = field->info->get(f, addr, size, NULL);
>> >>
On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 08:01:56PM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> * Jianjun Duan (du...@linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 10/05/2016 09:56 AM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > > * Jianjun Duan (du...@linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> > >> Currently we cannot directly transfer a QTAILQ
On 10/06/2016 12:01 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> * Jianjun Duan (du...@linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/05/2016 09:56 AM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
>>> * Jianjun Duan (du...@linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
Currently we cannot directly transfer a QTAILQ instance because of the
* Jianjun Duan (du...@linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
>
>
> On 10/05/2016 09:56 AM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > * Jianjun Duan (du...@linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> >> Currently we cannot directly transfer a QTAILQ instance because of the
> >> limitation in the migration code. Here we introduce an
* Paolo Bonzini (pbonz...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
>
> On 06/10/2016 13:56, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> >> > Yes, it's sickening but that's what you do to honor backwards
> >> > compatibility.
> > Actually, that's not *that* bad an idea.
> >
> > Lets go with Jianjun's structure for the moment;
On 06/10/2016 13:56, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
>> > Yes, it's sickening but that's what you do to honor backwards
>> > compatibility.
> Actually, that's not *that* bad an idea.
>
> Lets go with Jianjun's structure for the moment; we can always expand on it.
>
> It seems we have ~3 concepts
* Paolo Bonzini (pbonz...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
>
> On 05/10/2016 18:56, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > * Jianjun Duan (du...@linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> >> Currently we cannot directly transfer a QTAILQ instance because of the
> >> limitation in the migration code. Here we introduce an approa
On 05/10/2016 18:56, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> * Jianjun Duan (du...@linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
>> Currently we cannot directly transfer a QTAILQ instance because of the
>> limitation in the migration code. Here we introduce an approach to
>> transfer such structures. In our approach such a
On 10/05/2016 09:56 AM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> * Jianjun Duan (du...@linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
>> Currently we cannot directly transfer a QTAILQ instance because of the
>> limitation in the migration code. Here we introduce an approach to
>> transfer such structures. In our approach suc
* Jianjun Duan (du...@linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> Currently we cannot directly transfer a QTAILQ instance because of the
> limitation in the migration code. Here we introduce an approach to
> transfer such structures. In our approach such a structure is tagged
> with VMS_LINKED. We then modified v
Currently we cannot directly transfer a QTAILQ instance because of the
limitation in the migration code. Here we introduce an approach to
transfer such structures. In our approach such a structure is tagged
with VMS_LINKED. We then modified vmstate_save_state and vmstate_load_state
so that when VMS
12 matches
Mail list logo
