Re: [PATCH v1] migration: fail the cap check if it requires the use of deferred incoming

[Peter Xu]

On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 01:42:06AM +0000, Wang, Wei W wrote:
> On Friday, May 19, 2023 11:34 PM, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > Ah yes indeed it keeps working, because we apply -global bits before
> > > setup sockets. Then it's fine by me since that's the only thing I
> > > would still like to keep it working. :)
> > >
> > > If so, can we reword the error message a bit?  Obviously as you said
> > > we're not really checking against -defer, but established channels.
> > > The problem is if something is established without knowing multifd
> > > being there it may not work for multifd or preempt, not strictly about 
> > > defer.
> > >
> > > How about:
> > >
> > >   "Multifd/Preempt-Mode cannot be modified if incoming channel has
> > setup"
> > >
> > > ?
> 
> Yes, I'll reword it a bit.
> 
> > 
> > We may also want to trap the channel setups on num:
> > 
> > migrate_params_test_apply():
> > 
> >     if (params->has_multifd_channels) {
> >         dest->multifd_channels = params->multifd_channels;
> >     }
> 
> Didn’t get this one. What do you want to add to above?

I meant after listen() is called with an explicit number in this case,
should we disallow changing of multifd number of channels?

-- 
Peter Xu