* Paolo Bonzini (pbonz...@redhat.com) wrote:
> Il 03/10/2014 19:47, Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git) ha scritto:
> > + mis->postcopy_ram_state);
> > + if (mis->postcopy_ram_state == POSTCOPY_RAM_INCOMING_ADVISE) {
> > + /*
> > + * Where a migration had postcopy enabled (and thus went to advise)
> > + * but managed to complete within the precopy period
> > + */
> > + postcopy_ram_incoming_cleanup(mis);
> > + } else {
> > + if ((ret >= 0) &&
> > + (mis->postcopy_ram_state > POSTCOPY_RAM_INCOMING_ADVISE)) {
>
> Instead of the >, it is perhaps nicer to use an outer if that checks for
> state != NONE? Because in fact this check is for state != NONE, having
> ADVISE been handled above.
You mean something like this (untested) ?
if (mis->postcopy_ram_state != POSTCOPY_RAM_INCOMING_NONE) {
if (mis->postcopy_ram_state == POSTCOPY_RAM_INCOMING_ADVISE) {
/*
* Where a migration had postcopy enabled (and thus went to advise)
* but managed to complete within the precopy period
*/
postcopy_ram_incoming_cleanup(mis);
} else if (ret >= 0) {
/*
* Postcopy was started, cleanup should happen at the end of the
* postcopy thread.
*/
DPRINTF("process_incoming_migration_co: exiting main branch");
return;
}
}
Dave
> Paolo
>
> > + /*
> > + * Postcopy was started, cleanup should happen at the end of
> > the
> > + * postcopy thread.
> > + */
> > + DPRINTF("process_incoming_migration_co: exiting main branch");
> > + return;
> > + }
> > + }
>
--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
