On 05/11/2015 05:02 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 11/05/15 03:31, Hongyang Yang wrote:
On 05/08/2015 09:30 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Fri, 2015-05-08 at 13:54 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
This is in preparation for supporting checkpointed streams in
migration v2.
- For PV guests, the VCPU co
On 11/05/15 03:31, Hongyang Yang wrote:
> On 05/08/2015 09:30 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
>> On Fri, 2015-05-08 at 13:54 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> This is in preparation for supporting checkpointed streams in
>>> migration v2.
>>> - For PV guests, the VCPU context is moved to end_of_checkpoint(
On 05/08/2015 09:55 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 08/05/15 14:50, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Fri, 2015-05-08 at 14:37 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
Does Remus currently function if the sending toolstack suddenly
disappears out of the mix?
I would assume so, that's its entire purpose...
But the sig
On 05/08/2015 09:30 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Fri, 2015-05-08 at 13:54 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
This is in preparation for supporting checkpointed streams in migration v2.
- For PV guests, the VCPU context is moved to end_of_checkpoint().
- For HVM guests, the HVM context and params are
On Fri, 2015-05-08 at 14:55 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 08/05/15 14:50, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Fri, 2015-05-08 at 14:37 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> >> Does Remus currently function if the sending toolstack suddenly
> >> disappears out of the mix?
> > I would assume so, that's its entire
On 08/05/15 14:50, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-05-08 at 14:37 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> Does Remus currently function if the sending toolstack suddenly
>> disappears out of the mix?
> I would assume so, that's its entire purpose...
But the signal to resume the domain properly involves
On Fri, 2015-05-08 at 14:37 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> Does Remus currently function if the sending toolstack suddenly
> disappears out of the mix?
I would assume so, that's its entire purpose...
Ian.
___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.
On 08/05/15 14:30, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-05-08 at 13:54 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> This is in preparation for supporting checkpointed streams in migration v2.
>> - For PV guests, the VCPU context is moved to end_of_checkpoint().
>> - For HVM guests, the HVM context and params are
On Fri, 2015-05-08 at 13:54 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> This is in preparation for supporting checkpointed streams in migration v2.
> - For PV guests, the VCPU context is moved to end_of_checkpoint().
> - For HVM guests, the HVM context and params are moved to
> end_of_checkpoint().
[...]
> +
This is in preparation for supporting checkpointed streams in migration v2.
- For PV guests, the VCPU context is moved to end_of_checkpoint().
- For HVM guests, the HVM context and params are moved to end_of_checkpoint().
For regular migration, this results in a reordering of the tail records, b
10 matches
Mail list logo
