On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 05:35:53PM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: > On 14.01.26 15:22, Peter Xu wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 09:19:10AM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy > > wrote: > > > On 13.01.26 21:56, Peter Xu wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 01:12:42PM -0500, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 02:58:09PM +0500, Alexandr Moshkov wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Peter: Please review the migration aspects (especially the vmstates). > > > > > Thank you! > > > > > > > > Looks good from my side as long as it's based on VMSD, I appreciate that > > > > change from the old versions where it used to use qemufile APIs. > > > > > > > > The major question here is if this series depends on Vladimir's other > > > > series > > > > > > No, it does not. And if we can proceed with merging these series first, > > > I'll > > > be happy to rebase on top of it. > > > > I thought it requires migrate_local_vhost_user_blk() be present? The > > inflight feature should not be enabled only if there's a hint that it's a > > local migration.. > > Oh right, I missed it. > > We discussed that Alexandr will rebase the series on master without dependency > on my RFC.
The problem is IIUC the new INFLIGHT feature bit will be declared as supported to vhost-user-block after applying this series. Then if we start a remote migration (rather than local) it'll be automatically (and wrongly) enabled? AFAIU, the dependency makes sense, at least to the patch to introduce the "local" / ... capability? -- Peter Xu
