Chris Lalancette wrote:
> Uri Lublin wrote:
>
>> Patch looks good.
>> Why did you define MIG_STAT_DIRTY_TRACK_FAIL and not
>> MIG_STAT_KVM_SET_DIRTY_TRACKING_FAILED ?
>>
>
> Oops, I slightly misunderstood this bit in my last e-mail. You were saying
> that
> there is already a "MIG_STAT_K
Uri Lublin wrote:
> Patch looks good.
> Why did you define MIG_STAT_DIRTY_TRACK_FAIL and not
> MIG_STAT_KVM_SET_DIRTY_TRACKING_FAILED ?
Oops, I slightly misunderstood this bit in my last e-mail. You were saying that
there is already a "MIG_STAT_KVM_SET_DIRTY_TRACKING_FAILED" error flag. In the
Uri Lublin wrote:
>
> Chris Lalancette wrote:
>> All,
>> Attached is a fairly simple patch to the migration code to make it
>> handle
>> errors better. In particular, if the remote side wasn't set up properly
>> (i.e.
>> the memory size didn't match), the migration would fail, but the sour
Chris Lalancette wrote:
> All,
> Attached is a fairly simple patch to the migration code to make it handle
> errors better. In particular, if the remote side wasn't set up properly (i.e.
> the memory size didn't match), the migration would fail, but the source host
> didn't actually react p
All,
Attached is a fairly simple patch to the migration code to make it handle
errors better. In particular, if the remote side wasn't set up properly (i.e.
the memory size didn't match), the migration would fail, but the source host
didn't actually react properly, so the migration would stil
