On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 15:07:04 +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:20:46AM +0100, Jiri Denemark wrote:
> > VIR_DOMAIN_EVENT_SUSPENDED_POSTCOPY and VIR_DOMAIN_PAUSED_POSTCOPY are
> > used on the source host once migration enters post-copy mode (which
> > means the domain gets paused on the source. After the destination host
> > takes over the execution of the domain, its virtual CPUs are resumed and
> > the domain enters VIR_DOMAIN_RUNNING_POSTCOPY state and
> > VIR_DOMAIN_EVENT_RESUMED_POSTCOPY event is emitted.
> >
> > In case migration fails during post-copy mode and none of the hosts have
> > complete state of the domain, both domains will remain paused with
> > VIR_DOMAIN_PAUSED_POSTCOPY_FAILED reason and an upper layer may decide
> > what to do.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jiri Denemark <jdenemar@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> > @@ -2380,6 +2383,8 @@ typedef enum {
> > VIR_DOMAIN_EVENT_SUSPENDED_RESTORED = 4, /* Restored from paused state file */
> > VIR_DOMAIN_EVENT_SUSPENDED_FROM_SNAPSHOT = 5, /* Restored from paused snapshot */
> > VIR_DOMAIN_EVENT_SUSPENDED_API_ERROR = 6, /* suspended after failure during libvirt API call */
> > + VIR_DOMAIN_EVENT_SUSPENDED_POSTCOPY = 7, /* suspended for post-copy migration */
> > + VIR_DOMAIN_EVENT_SUSPENDED_POSTCOPY_FAILED = 8, /* suspended after failed post-copy */
>
> Presumably the POSTCOPY_FAILED event can only be emitted
> on the target, since the source will already be suspended
> when we see a failure, and it doesn't make sense to issue
> a suspended event when we're already suspended.
But would it cause any harm? I figured it might be better to emit the
event and set the state to POSTCOPY_FAILED even on the source so that
apps/users don't have to guess whether POSTCOPY means it's still running
or if it already failed.
Jirka
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list