On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 14:34:52 +0000 Shameerali Kolothum Thodi <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jason Gunthorpe [mailto:jgg@xxxxxxxxxx] > > > > > I see pf_qm_state_pre_save() but didn't understand why it wanted to > > send the first 32 bytes in the PRECOPY mode? It is fine, but it > > will add some complexity to continue to do this. > > That was mainly to do a quick verification between src and dst compatibility > before we start saving the state. I think probably we can delay that check > for later. In the v1 migration scheme, this was considered good practice. It shouldn't be limited to PRECOPY, as there's no requirement to use PRECOPY, but the earlier in the migration process that we can trigger a device or data stream compatibility fault, the better. TBH, even in the case where a device doesn't support live dirty tracking for a PRECOPY phase, using it for compatibility testing continues to seem like good practice. Thanks, Alex
