On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 11:18:11PM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote: > On 3.02.2025 22:27, Peter Xu wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 11:08:34AM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote: > > > From: "Maciej S. Szmigiero" <maciej.szmigi...@oracle.com> > > > > > > Add a basic support for receiving device state via multifd channels - > > > channels that are shared with RAM transfers. > > > > > > Depending whether MULTIFD_FLAG_DEVICE_STATE flag is present or not in the > > > packet header either device state (MultiFDPacketDeviceState_t) or RAM > > > data (existing MultiFDPacket_t) is read. > > > > > > The received device state data is provided to > > > qemu_loadvm_load_state_buffer() function for processing in the > > > device's load_state_buffer handler. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Maciej S. Szmigiero <maciej.szmigi...@oracle.com> > > > > I think I acked this one. You could keep my R-b if... > > > > [...] > > > > > diff --git a/migration/multifd.h b/migration/multifd.h > > > index 9e4baa066312..abf3acdcee40 100644 > > > --- a/migration/multifd.h > > > +++ b/migration/multifd.h > > > @@ -62,6 +62,12 @@ MultiFDRecvData *multifd_get_recv_data(void); > > > #define MULTIFD_FLAG_UADK (8 << 1) > > > #define MULTIFD_FLAG_QATZIP (16 << 1) > > > +/* > > > + * If set it means that this packet contains device state > > > + * (MultiFDPacketDeviceState_t), not RAM data (MultiFDPacket_t). > > > + */ > > > +#define MULTIFD_FLAG_DEVICE_STATE (1 << 6) > > > > ... if this won't conflict with MULTIFD_FLAG_QATZIP. > > Hmm, isn't (16 << 1) = 32 while (1 << 6) = 64?
Oops. :) > > I think we should stick with one way to write it, then when rebase you can > > see such conflicts - either your patch uses 32 << 1, or perhaps we should > > start to switch to BIT() for all above instead.. Still, do you mind switch to "32 << 1" (or use BIT())? With either, feel free to take: Reviewed-by: Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> -- Peter Xu
