On 10/05/2011 10:25 PM, Juan Quintela wrote:
Anthony Liguorianth...@codemonkey.ws wrote:
On 10/04/2011 09:49 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
Anthony Liguorianth...@codemonkey.ws wrote:
On 09/23/2011 07:57 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
[ much more stuff ]
It avoids s==NULL checks,
In favor of
On 10/04/2011 09:49 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
Anthony Liguorianth...@codemonkey.ws wrote:
On 09/23/2011 07:57 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
This cleans up a lot the code as we don't have to check anymore if
the variable is NULL or not.
We don't make it static, because when we integrate fault
Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws wrote:
On 10/04/2011 09:49 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
Anthony Liguorianth...@codemonkey.ws wrote:
On 09/23/2011 07:57 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
[ much more stuff ]
It avoids s==NULL checks,
In favor of s-state == MIG_STATE_NONE.
and it also avoids
On 09/23/2011 07:57 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
This cleans up a lot the code as we don't have to check anymore if
the variable is NULL or not.
We don't make it static, because when we integrate fault tolerance, we
can have several migrations at once.
Signed-off-by: Juan
Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws wrote:
On 09/23/2011 07:57 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
This cleans up a lot the code as we don't have to check anymore if
the variable is NULL or not.
We don't make it static, because when we integrate fault tolerance, we
can have several migrations at
This cleans up a lot the code as we don't have to check anymore if
the variable is NULL or not.
We don't make it static, because when we integrate fault tolerance, we
can have several migrations at once.
Signed-off-by: Juan Quintela quint...@redhat.com
---
migration.c | 126
This cleans up a lot the code as we don't have to check anymore if
the variable is NULL or not.
We don't make it static, because when we integrate fault tolerance, we
can have several migrations at once.
Signed-off-by: Juan Quintela quint...@redhat.com
---
migration.c | 126
