On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 3:24 AM Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 09, 2021 at 04:56:13AM -0300, Leonardo Bras wrote: > > diff --git a/qapi/migration.json b/qapi/migration.json > > index 88f07baedd..c4890cbb54 100644 > > --- a/qapi/migration.json > > +++ b/qapi/migration.json > > @@ -724,6 +724,11 @@ > > # will consume more CPU. > > # Defaults to 1. (Since 5.0) > > # > > +# @multifd-zerocopy: Controls behavior on sending memory pages on multifd > > migration. > > +# When true, enables a zerocopy mechanism for sending > > memory > > +# pages, if host does support it. > > +# Defaults to false. (Since 6.2) > > +# > > Shall we keep it named "@zerocopy"? Yes we have that dependency with multifd, > but it's fine to just fail the configuration if multifd not set. The thing is > we don't know whether that dependency will last forever, and we probably don't > want to introduce yet another feature bit when we can remove the dependency.. > as we can't remove the old one to be compatible.
It makes sense not wanting to create a new future bit in the future, but if we just add a "@zerocopy' , wouldn't we need to fail every migration setup that don't support zerocopy? (Thinking back, to stay as it is, it would also be necessary that I find a way to fail other multifd setups that don't support zerocopy, for v5) > > -- > Peter Xu >
