> On 26 Feb 2026, at 10:53 PM, Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 2/26/26 04:46, Ani Sinha wrote:
>>> On 25 Feb 2026, at 10:59 PM, Peter Xu <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Hi, Ani,
>>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 09:19:40AM +0530, Ani Sinha wrote:
>>>> Currently the code that adds a migration blocker does not check
>>>> if the same blocker already exists. Return an EEXIST error code
>>>> if there is an attempt to add the same migration blocker again.
>>>> This way the same migration blocker will not get added twice.
>>> Could you help explain why it will inject two identical errors in
>>> the first place, and why the caller cannot make sure it won't be
>>> injected twice?
>> Likely due to a bug in the code. For example if the init function
>> that adds the blocker is called again and the caller does not handle
>> the second init call properly. This came up as a part of the coco
>> reset work where migration blockers are added in init methods. They
>> need not be added again when init methods are again called during
>> the reset process. The caller can handle it of course but adding a
>> check further down the call stack makes things more robust.
> Since this is the last patch, is it okay to remove it at least for now? Can
> the situation actually happen?
>
Yes you can drop this patch for now. When we get consensus if/what needs to be
done, I can send another fix.
> If not and it's a programming error, even an abort() is okay.
