On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 10:06:25AM +0800, zhukeqian wrote: > > On 2020/12/7 18:38, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 09:55:53AM +0800, zhukeqian wrote: > >> Hi Daniel, > >> > >> On 2020/12/4 22:42, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> On 12/4/20 5:12 AM, zhukeqian wrote: > >>>> Hi folks, > >>>> > >>>> Kindly ping. I found that this patch is not applied. > >>>> Has reviewed by Daniel Henrique Barboza and Daniel P. Berrangé. > >>> > >>> > >>> It has my ACK, but looking into the messages I see that Daniel was > >>> inquiring about this being a bug fix or an enhancement (he didn't > >>> provide an ACK). Not sure if he wants some changes in the commit > >>> message or if he has any other reservations about it. > >>> > >> I see, thanks. I will ask for his thoughts. > > > > Yes, it wasn't clear what this actually changed from libvirt's POV. > > > > What API call or usage scenario is currently broken, that this fixes ? > > > > Hi Daniel, > > The purpose is to remove this failure check for QEMU v2.12. > In QEMU commit 65ace0604551, it decoupled the RAM status from the active migration status. > > The usage scenario is querying migration status at destination side, which may contain > active migration status, but without RAM status, so we will see that libvirt report error here. I'm confused, because AFAIK, libvirt does not need to run query-migrate on the destination, so there shouldn't be anything that needs fixing. So can you explain what sceanario with libvirt you are seeing an error in, and exactly how this fixes it. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
