Leonardo Bras Soares Passos <leob...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 3:16 PM Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> > wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 03:03:29PM -0300, Leonardo Bras Soares Passos wrote: >> > Hello Daniel, >> > >> > On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 10:10 AM Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > On Thu, Jan 06, 2022 at 07:13:40PM -0300, Leonardo Bras wrote: >> > > > Add property that allows zero-copy migration of memory pages, >> > > > and also includes a helper function migrate_use_zero_copy() to check >> > > > if it's enabled. >> > > > >> > > > No code is introduced to actually do the migration, but it allow >> > > > future implementations to enable/disable this feature. >> > > > >> > > > On non-Linux builds this parameter is compiled-out. >> > > > >> > > > Signed-off-by: Leonardo Bras <leob...@redhat.com> >> > > > --- >> > > > qapi/migration.json | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> > > > migration/migration.h | 5 +++++ >> > > > migration/migration.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> > > > migration/socket.c | 5 +++++ >> > > > monitor/hmp-cmds.c | 6 ++++++ >> > > > 5 files changed, 72 insertions(+) >> > > >> > > Reviewed-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> >> > >> > Thanks! >> > > Ok, I see the point. > I will try to refactor the code changing zero-copy to zero-copy-send > or something like that.
Hi I am late to the party, but I agree with Dan that we need two flags. Thre reason is that you can be the target of one migration, and later be the source of a next one. If we only have one flag that means different things on the source and destination side, things become really complicated. Later, Juan.
