Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 23/27] tools/libxl: [RFC] Write checkpoint records into the stream

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 17/06/15 08:30, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-06-16 at 16:53 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 16/06/15 16:03, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2015-06-15 at 14:44 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>>> when signalled to do so by libxl__remus_domain_checkpoint_callback()
>>> I think I saw that Remus wasn't currently working, so I'll let you and
>>> Hongyang thrash something out before I spend too much effort reviewing
>>> these last few RFC bits. Unless you think it is worth my having a look
>>> now?
>>>
>>>
>> Remus was broken by patch 19 in the series, and this patch forms part of
>> fixing it again.
>>
>> I can't find a way of fixing the layering violation in both plain
>> migration and Remus, in a readable, bisectable way.
>>
>> Remus requires identical source and destination toolstacks, and the
>> Remus maintainers are happy enough with the "break it and fix it up in
>> the same series" approach.
>>
>> Now that the series is comeplete, there is some shuffling room to reduce
>> the window of breakage, but short of folding patches 19, 21, 23-25
>> together, Remus will break.
> The report I was referring to thinking I'd seen was that Remus was still
> broken even after the complete series was applied i.e. there was still
> more to be done.

That is because I was blind-coding Remus support without an ability to test.

>
> I'm happy with the transient breakage in this series on this occasion,
> but I was proposing not to review until Remus was thought to be working
> OK at the end.

It is mostly fixed now.  I just need to fix the failover handling, and
have instructions on how to do so.

~Andrew

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