Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v9 09/25] tools/libx{l, c}: introduce should_checkpoint callback

2016-01-26 Thread Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 10:37:39AM +0800, Wen Congyang wrote: > Under COLO, we are doing checkpoint on demand, if this > callback returns 1, we will take another checkpoint. So 1 means OK. > 0 indicates unexpected error. Why not return an error? > > Signed-off-by: Yang Hongyang

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v9 09/25] tools/libx{l, c}: introduce should_checkpoint callback

2016-01-26 Thread Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 03:50:32PM -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 10:37:39AM +0800, Wen Congyang wrote: > > Under COLO, we are doing checkpoint on demand, if this > > callback returns 1, we will take another checkpoint. > > So 1 means OK. > > > 0 indicates

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v9 09/25] tools/libx{l, c}: introduce should_checkpoint callback

2016-01-26 Thread Wen Congyang
On 01/27/2016 05:09 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 03:50:32PM -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 10:37:39AM +0800, Wen Congyang wrote: >>> Under COLO, we are doing checkpoint on demand, if this >>> callback returns 1, we will take another

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v9 09/25] tools/libx{l, c}: introduce should_checkpoint callback

2016-01-26 Thread Wen Congyang
On 01/27/2016 04:50 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 10:37:39AM +0800, Wen Congyang wrote: >> Under COLO, we are doing checkpoint on demand, if this >> callback returns 1, we will take another checkpoint. > > So 1 means OK. > >> 0 indicates unexpected error. > > Why

[Xen-devel] [PATCH v9 09/25] tools/libx{l, c}: introduce should_checkpoint callback

2015-12-29 Thread Wen Congyang
Under COLO, we are doing checkpoint on demand, if this callback returns 1, we will take another checkpoint. 0 indicates unexpected error. Signed-off-by: Yang Hongyang Signed-off-by: Wen Congyang --- tools/libxc/include/xenguest.h | 18