From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cooper Subject: Re: [PATCH 22/27] docs/libxl: [RFC] Introduce CHECKPOINT_END to support migration v2 remus streams Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 16:30:31 +0100 Message-ID: <55804117.4060601@citrix.com> References: <1434375880-30914-1-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> <1434375880-30914-23-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> <1434466854.13744.211.camel@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1434466854.13744.211.camel@citrix.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Campbell Cc: Wei Liu , Yang Hongyang , Ian Jackson , Xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 16/06/15 16:00, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Mon, 2015-06-15 at 14:44 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> In a remus senario, libxc will write a CHECKPOINT record, then hand ownership > "scenario" > >> of the fd to libxl. Libxl then writes any records required and finishes with >> a CHECKPOINT_END record, then hands ownership of the fd back to libxc. > Seems like a plausible scheme to me, if that's what the RFC was for. The RFC was for all the "support remus" bits, where I wrote code but was unable to test. They will all be dropped for v2, once the suggested adjustments are done. ~Andrew