* Eric Blake (ebl...@redhat.com) wrote: > On 7/24/20 3:43 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: > > First, if only bitmaps postcopy enabled (not ram postcopy) > > is enabled (and not ram postcopy), > > > postcopy_pause_incoming crashes on assertion assert(mis->to_src_file). > > on an > > > > > And anyway, bitmaps postcopy is not prepared to be somehow recovered. > > The original idea instead is that if bitmaps postcopy failed, we just > > loss some bitmaps, which is not critical. So, on failure we just need > > lose > > > to remove unfinished bitmaps and guest should continue execution on > > destination. > > > > Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsement...@virtuozzo.com> > > Reviewed-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilb...@redhat.com> > > Reviewed-by: Andrey Shinkevich <andrey.shinkev...@virtuozzo.com> > > --- > > migration/savevm.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- > > 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > Definitely a bug fix, but I'd like David's opinion on whether this is still > 5.1 material (because it is limited to just bitmaps migration, which is > opt-in) or too risky (because we've already had several releases where it > was broken, what's one more?).
I think it's OK for 5.1 Dave > I'm less familiar with the code, so this is weak, but I did read through it > and nothing jumped out at me, so: > > Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> > > -- > Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer > Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3226 > Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
