On 19/02/2025 21:23, Peter Xu wrote:
>> I tried to kill RAM_SAVE_CONTROL_NOT_SUPP, but It seems it doesn't need to
>> touch any postcopy logic
>> "in the QMP migrate / migrate_incoming cmd, at
>> migration_channels_and_transport_compatible()"
>>
>> Is there something I might have overlooked?
>
On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 09:39:38AM +, Zhijian Li (Fujitsu) wrote:
>
>
> On 19/02/2025 06:03, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 05:30:40PM -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote:
> >> Li Zhijian via writes:
> >>
> >>> Address an error in RDMA-based migration by ensuring RDMA is prioritized
> >>
On 19/02/2025 06:03, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 05:30:40PM -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote:
>> Li Zhijian via writes:
>>
>>> Address an error in RDMA-based migration by ensuring RDMA is prioritized
>>> when saving pages in `ram_save_target_page()`.
>>>
>>> Previously, the RDMA protocol
On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 05:30:40PM -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote:
> Li Zhijian via writes:
>
> > Address an error in RDMA-based migration by ensuring RDMA is prioritized
> > when saving pages in `ram_save_target_page()`.
> >
> > Previously, the RDMA protocol's page-saving step was placed after other
Li Zhijian via writes:
> Address an error in RDMA-based migration by ensuring RDMA is prioritized
> when saving pages in `ram_save_target_page()`.
>
> Previously, the RDMA protocol's page-saving step was placed after other
> protocols due to a refactoring in commit bc38dc2f5f3. This led to migrat
Address an error in RDMA-based migration by ensuring RDMA is prioritized
when saving pages in `ram_save_target_page()`.
Previously, the RDMA protocol's page-saving step was placed after other
protocols due to a refactoring in commit bc38dc2f5f3. This led to migration
failures characterized by unkn
