On Thu, 12 Mar 2026 at 15:37, Peter Xu <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 01:25:04PM +0800, Yanfei Xu wrote: > > Sorry for the lack of background information. > > > > We follow the vfio SaveVMHandlers and add an extra vfio SaveVMHandlers > > variant with is_active. In our internal codebase, we set it inactive > > during migration but active in a specific scenario. > > > > You are right that upstream tree works well. I sent this patch because I > > assumed the semantics of is_active is similiar to the "needed" field in > > vmsd. > > > > I'd like to get your opinion on this. Perhaps this case we used won't > > occur in upstream? > > Thanks for explaining. That makes sense on its own, but I think you're > also correct since it won't occur in upstream then it means we're adding > dead code into upstream code that has zero use.
Incidentally we're now down to very few users left of the legacy SaveVMHandlers mechanism: less than half a dozen, I think. (I imagine the main pain point for getting rid of the rest is retaining migration compat.) -- PMM
