[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] migration: Allow unregister of save_live handle
From: |
Peter Xu |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] migration: Allow unregister of save_live handlers |
Date: |
Wed, 24 May 2017 16:25:11 +0800 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) |
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 09:37:19AM +0200, Juan Quintela wrote:
> Migration non save_live handlers have an ops member that is
> dinamically allocated by migration code. Save_live handlers have it
> passed as argument and are responsability of the caller. Add a new
> member is_allocated that remembers if ops has to be freed. This
> allows unregister_savevm() to work with save_live handlers.
>
> Signed-off-by: Juan Quintela <address@hidden>
> ---
> include/migration/vmstate.h | 2 ++
> migration/savevm.c | 5 ++++-
> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/migration/vmstate.h b/include/migration/vmstate.h
> index f97411d..1d20e30 100644
> --- a/include/migration/vmstate.h
> +++ b/include/migration/vmstate.h
> @@ -57,6 +57,8 @@ typedef struct SaveVMHandlers {
> uint64_t *non_postcopiable_pending,
> uint64_t *postcopiable_pending);
> LoadStateHandler *load_state;
> + /* Has been allocated by migratation code */
> + bool is_allocated;
> } SaveVMHandlers;
>
> int register_savevm(DeviceState *dev,
> diff --git a/migration/savevm.c b/migration/savevm.c
> index d971e5e..187f386 100644
> --- a/migration/savevm.c
> +++ b/migration/savevm.c
> @@ -628,6 +628,7 @@ int register_savevm(DeviceState *dev,
> SaveVMHandlers *ops = g_new0(SaveVMHandlers, 1);
> ops->save_state = save_state;
> ops->load_state = load_state;
> + ops->is_allocated = true;
> return register_savevm_live(dev, idstr, instance_id, version_id,
> ops, opaque);
> }
> @@ -651,7 +652,9 @@ void unregister_savevm(DeviceState *dev, const char
> *idstr, void *opaque)
> if (strcmp(se->idstr, id) == 0 && se->opaque == opaque) {
> QTAILQ_REMOVE(&savevm_state.handlers, se, entry);
> g_free(se->compat);
> - g_free(se->ops);
> + if (se->ops->is_allocated) {
Would it be good to check against (se->ops && se->ops->is_allocated)?
Since I see that devices registered via
vmstate_register_with_alias_id() won't have this se->ops. I just don't
know whether that case will be allowed to be unregistered with current
function.
Thanks,
> + g_free(se->ops);
> + }
> g_free(se);
> }
> }
> --
> 2.9.3
>
--
Peter Xu