From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40156) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dBfYT-0003qu-8A for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 19 May 2017 06:54:46 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dBfYQ-0007dQ-5R for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 19 May 2017 06:54:45 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:51906) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dBfYP-0007d4-Vm for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 19 May 2017 06:54:42 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D3AF37EEC for ; Fri, 19 May 2017 10:54:40 +0000 (UTC) From: Markus Armbruster References: <20170518111837.29212-1-quintela@redhat.com> <20170518111837.29212-4-quintela@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 12:54:36 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20170518111837.29212-4-quintela@redhat.com> (Juan Quintela's message of "Thu, 18 May 2017 13:18:35 +0200") Message-ID: <8760gxce1f.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/5] migration: Remove use of old MigrationParams List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Juan Quintela Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, lvivier@redhat.com, dgilbert@redhat.com, peterx@redhat.com Juan Quintela writes: > We have change in the previous patch to use migration capabilities for > it. Notice that we continue using the old command line flags from > migrate command from the time being. Remove the set_params method as > now it is empty. > > For savevm, one can't do a: > > savevm -b/-i foo Yes (savem has no such options). > but now one can do: > > migrate_set_capability block on > savevm foo > > And we can't use block migration. We could disable block capability > unconditionally, but it would not be much better. This leaves me confused: what does the example do? Reading ahead... looks like it fails with "Block migration and snapshots are incompatible". What are you trying to say here? > Signed-off-by: Juan Quintela > Reviewed-by: Eric Blake Patch looks good to me.