On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 02:49:07PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote: > On Fri, 09/15 14:41, Peter Xu wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 01:44:02PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote: > > > So that we can do cleanup unconditionally at the end of main(). > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Fam Zheng <f...@redhat.com> > > > --- > > > migration/ram.c | 3 +++ > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/migration/ram.c b/migration/ram.c > > > index e18b3e2d4f..37e6a71241 100644 > > > --- a/migration/ram.c > > > +++ b/migration/ram.c > > > @@ -1365,6 +1365,9 @@ static void ram_save_cleanup(void *opaque) > > > RAMState **rsp = opaque; > > > RAMBlock *block; > > > > > > + if (!rsp || !*rsp) { > > > + return; > > > + } > > > /* caller have hold iothread lock or is in a bh, so there is > > > * no writing race against this migration_bitmap > > > */ > > > -- > > > 2.13.5 > > > > > > > Instead of take special care on RAM, how about check in > > migrate_fd_cancel(), and return directly if migration_is_idle()? > > This is not from migrate_fd_cancel(), but from qemu_savevm_state_cleanup(), so > that doesn't work.
Yeh I see the point. But my logic still stands - we don't need to cleanup anything if the migration is not really there. I'm thinking whether we can put qemu_savevm_state_cleanup() into migrate_fd_cancel() in some way, though I am still not 100% sure on the colo part. Anyway, I feel like a bit confusing we have two cleanup functions. -- Peter Xu