On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 09:21:38AM +0300, Alexey Perevalov wrote:
> On 06/09/2017 07:10 AM, Peter Xu wrote:
> >On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 12:46:29PM +0300, Alexey Perevalov wrote:
> >>That tiny refactoring is necessary to be able to set
> >>UFFD_FEATURE_THREAD_ID while requesting features, and then
> >>to create downtime context in case when kernel supports it.
> >>
> >>Signed-off-by: Alexey Perevalov <a.pereva...@samsung.com>
> >>---
> >> migration/migration.c | 3 ++-
> >> migration/postcopy-ram.c | 10 +++++-----
> >> migration/postcopy-ram.h | 2 +-
> >> migration/savevm.c | 2 +-
> >> 4 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >>
> >>diff --git a/migration/migration.c b/migration/migration.c
> >>index 48c94c9..2a77636 100644
> >>--- a/migration/migration.c
> >>+++ b/migration/migration.c
> >>@@ -726,6 +726,7 @@ void
> >>qmp_migrate_set_capabilities(MigrationCapabilityStatusList *params,
> >> Error **errp)
> >> {
> >> MigrationState *s = migrate_get_current();
> >>+ MigrationIncomingState *mis = migration_incoming_get_current();
> >If this patch is only servicing patch 6, I'd prefer in patch 6 we call
> >migration_incoming_get_current() (rather than here), then this patch
> >may be dropped?...
> I planed this patch as preparation, I used to separate refactoring from main
> change, for
> easy merging while rebasing.
> mis - is necessary here to have the same behaviour as before.
Could I ask what's the "same behavior" you mentioned?
I thought this patch is only used by patch 6 when creating the
blocktime struct (but not really a clean-up), no?
--
Peter Xu
