On 02/24/2017 04:01 AM, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > On Thu, 2017-02-23 at 13:42 -0500, John Ferlan wrote: >> v1: http://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2017-February/msg00897.html >> v1 cover letter reiterated: >> >> Patches 1, 3 -> 9 are primarily quite a bit of code motion in order to allow >> reuse of the "core" of the chardev TLS code. >> >> Theoretically speaking of course, these patches should work - I don't >> have a TLS and migration environment to test with, so between following >> the qemu command model on Daniel's blog and prior experience with the >> chardev TLS would >> >> I added the saving of a flag to the private qemu domain state, although >> I'm not 100% sure it was necessary. At one time I created the source TLS >> objects during the Begin phase, but later decided to wait until just >> before the migration is run. I think the main reason to have the flag >> would be a restart of libvirtd to let 'something' know migration using >> TLS was configured. I think it may only be "necessary" in order to >> repopulate the migSecinfo after libvirtd restart, but it's not entirely >> clear. By the time I started thinking more about while writing this cover >> letter it was too late to just remove. >> >> Also rather than create the destination host TLS objects on the fly, >> I modified the command line generation. That model could change to adding >> the TLS objects once the destination is started and before the params are >> set for the migration. >> >> This 'model' is also going to be used for the NBD, but I figured I'd get >> this posted now since it was already too long of a series. > > These changes are user-visible, and should be documented > in the release notes accordingly. > Yes I know - depends on "when" then get reviewed and ACK'd too. There are parts of the series that are essentially code motion - so I made conscious decision to wait. John > -- > Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization > -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list