On 10/04/24 8:23 pm, Peter Xu wrote:
!-------------------------------------------------------------------|
CAUTION: External Email
|-------------------------------------------------------------------!
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 10:04:33AM -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote:
Het Gala <het.g...@nutanix.com> writes:
This reverts commit 8e3766eefbb4036cbc280c1f1a0d28537929f7fb
After addition of 'channels' as the starting argument of new QAPI
syntax inside postcopy test, even if the user entered the old QAPI
syntax, test used the new syntax.
It was a temporary patch added to have some presence of the new syntax
since the migration qtest framework lacked any logic for introducing
'channels' argument.
That wasn't clear to me when we merged that. Was that really the case?
Yeah these look all a bit confusing..
I'm wondering whether do we need the new interface to cover both precopy
and postcopy, or one would suffice?
Both should share the same interface. I think it means if we covered the
channels interface in precopy, then perhaps we don't need to test anywhere
else, as we got the code paths all covered.
We actually do the same already for all kinds of channels for postcopy,
where we stick with either tcp/unix but don't cover the rest.
Do we want to add other transports too (vsock, exec, rdma) with the new
interface ?
I believe we have tests for fd based migration
Regards,
Het Gala
