On 08/23/2013 03:40 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 22/08/2013 22:50, Michael R. Hines ha scritto:
On 08/21/2013 11:18 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 21/08/2013 09:18, Lei Li ha scritto:
} else if (strstart(uri, "unix:", &p)) {
+ if (s->enabled_capabilities[MIGRATION_CAPABILITY_LOCALHOST]) {
+ local_start_outgoing_migration(s, p, &local_err);
+ }
unix_start_outgoing_migration(s, p, &local_err);
} else if (strstart(uri, "fd:", &p)) {
fd_start_outgoing_migration(s, p, &local_err);
@@ -521,6 +524,15 @@ int migrate_use_xbzrle(void)
return s->enabled_capabilities[MIGRATION_CAPABILITY_XBZRLE];
}
+bool migrate_is_localhost(void)
+{
+ MigrationState *s;
+
+ s = migrate_get_current();
+
+ return s->enabled_capabilities[MIGRATION_CAPABILITY_LOCALHOST];
+}
I think this is a bad name, too. There is nothing more "local" in this
migration than in "unix:" migration.
Let's call the capability according to what it does, for example
unix-page-flipping.
Why is there a capability at all? Isn't that what the "local" URI is for?
Because in these patches, the local URI is only present in the
destination (which is wrong: the destination should autodetect local
mode using the load-page hook). As you can see above, a "unix" URI will
examine the capability and pick the appropriate migration method.
Hi Paolo,
I agree with that 'localhost' is a bad capability name. Since we just use unix
socket temporarily and will be ending up with vmsplice via pipe, how about
just page_flipping?
However, this is also the wrong place to look at the capability. It is
the save-page hook that should examine the capability. It will then do
nothing if it is disabled, and do page-flipping if the capability is on.
Paolo
--
Lei