Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 6/6] libxl/save: Refactor libxl__domain_suspend_state

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yang Hongyang writes ("[PATCH v2 6/6] libxl/save: Refactor 
libxl__domain_suspend_state"):
> Currently struct libxl__domain_suspend_state contains 2 type of states,
> one is save state, another is suspend state. This patch separate it out.
> The motivation of this is that COLO will need to do suspend/resume
> continuesly, we need a more common suspend state.

Currently in libxl/libxc/etc.  "suspend" and "save" have referred to
the same thing, but different terminology has been used at different
layers.  Ie both "suspend" and "save" each refer to either or both of
"save to disk" or "suspend for live migrate", or to the relevant
underlying mechanisms.

So I'm not sure introducing a distinction between those two terms in
libxl is really helpful.  If it is to be done there should be a clear
explanation of what the difference is.

On IRC you said:

14:21 <yanghy> Diziet, currently, in libxl, suspend is used as 2
               means, one is save(corrspond to libxc save), another is
               suspend the guest(related to suspend callback)

That's rather different, I think.  Or, at least, I'm not sure that I
understand this distinction as you are making it.  The suspend
callback is part of the implementation of what at higher layers we
save/suspend/restore/migration.

AIUI this callback is related to pausing the guest, or manipulating
its VCPUs ?  Perhaps we should rename this callback ?  Maybe Andrew
Cooper can suggest a name ?

Forgive me if I'm confused and going off in the wrong direction...

Thanks,
Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel