[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 03/17] migration: Test for disabled features on
From: |
Juan Quintela |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 03/17] migration: Test for disabled features on reception |
Date: |
Thu, 09 Feb 2017 18:12:33 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) |
"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <address@hidden> wrote:
> * Juan Quintela (address@hidden) wrote:
>> Right now, if we receive a compressed page or a xbzrle page while this
>> features are disabled, Bad Things (TM) can happen. Just add a test for
>> them.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Juan Quintela <address@hidden>
>> ---
>> migration/ram.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/migration/ram.c b/migration/ram.c
>> index ef8fadf..4ad814a 100644
>> --- a/migration/ram.c
>> +++ b/migration/ram.c
>> @@ -2455,7 +2455,7 @@ static int ram_load_postcopy(QEMUFile *f)
>>
>> static int ram_load(QEMUFile *f, void *opaque, int version_id)
>> {
>> - int flags = 0, ret = 0;
>> + int flags = 0, ret = 0, invalid_flags;
>> static uint64_t seq_iter;
>> int len = 0;
>> /*
>> @@ -2470,6 +2470,15 @@ static int ram_load(QEMUFile *f, void *opaque, int
>> version_id)
>> ret = -EINVAL;
>> }
>>
>> + invalid_flags = 0;
>> +
>> + if (!migrate_use_xbzrle()) {
>> + invalid_flags |= RAM_SAVE_FLAG_XBZRLE;
>> + }
>
> Is that really the case? I thought we used to ignore the flags on the incoming
> side and didn't need to enable xbzrle on the destination?
we don't need infrastructure for xbzrle, but we need it for compression.
Removing xbzrle.
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 03/17] migration: Test for disabled features on reception,
Juan Quintela <=