Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v9 02/25] docs/libxl: Introduce COLO_CONTEXT to support migration v2 colo streams

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 11:00:24AM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 27/01/16 06:47, Wen Congyang wrote:
> > On 01/27/2016 04:40 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> >> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 10:37:32AM +0800, Wen Congyang wrote:
> >>> It is the negotiation record for COLO.
> >>> Primary->Secondary:
> >>> control_id      0x00000000: Secondary VM is out of sync, start a new 
> >>> checkpoint
> >>> Secondary->Primary:
> >>>                 0x00000001: Secondary VM is suspended
> >>>                 0x00000002: Secondary VM is ready
> >>>                 0x00000003: Secondary VM is resumed
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Wen Congyang <wency@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Yang Hongyang <hongyang.yang@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>>  docs/specs/libxl-migration-stream.pandoc | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >>>  tools/libxl/libxl_sr_stream_format.h     | 11 +++++++++++
> >>>  tools/python/xen/migration/libxl.py      |  9 +++++++++
> >>>  3 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/docs/specs/libxl-migration-stream.pandoc 
> >>> b/docs/specs/libxl-migration-stream.pandoc
> >>> index 2c97d86..5166d66 100644
> >>> --- a/docs/specs/libxl-migration-stream.pandoc
> >>> +++ b/docs/specs/libxl-migration-stream.pandoc
> >>> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
> >>>  % LibXenLight Domain Image Format
> >>>  % Andrew Cooper <<andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>>
> >>> -% Revision 1
> >>> +% Revision 2
> >>>  
> >>>  Introduction
> >>>  ============
> >>> @@ -119,7 +119,9 @@ type         0x00000000: END
> >>>  
> >>>               0x00000004: CHECKPOINT_END
> >>>  
> >>> -             0x00000005 - 0x7FFFFFFF: Reserved for future _mandatory_
> >>> +             0x00000005: CHECKPOINT_STATE
> >>> +
> >>> +             0x00000006 - 0x7FFFFFFF: Reserved for future _mandatory_
> >> This is in the 'mandatory' records. Should it be part of optional records?
> >>
> >> Would this checkpoint state always present on non-COLO guest migration?
> > No. Will be fixed in the next version
> 
> It is correct that CHECKPOINT_STATE is a mandatory record.
> 
> Optional records which are free for the receiving end to ignore if they
> are not understood.

What you are saying is that the receving end has to expect this 
(CHECKPOINT_STATE)
even there is nothing in them - as the size of them is zero (becuase there are
no  dirty PFNs to send).

> 
> ~Andrew

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel