Re: [Qemu-ppc] [Qemu-devel] [QEMU RFC PATCH v3 4/6] Migration: migrate QTAILQ

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 07/06/2016 18:34, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> * Paolo Bonzini (address@hidden) wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 07/06/2016 16:43, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
>>>   b) I think you should really try and split it into two parts:
>>>     1) A VMSTATE_ARRAY_CUSTOM (?) - so it's an array of elements but we've 
>>> got a special
>>>        way of allocating/counting/reading the elements
>>>     2) A version of that which is for a QTAILQ.
>>>        It's important that whatever ends up on the migration stream doesn't 
>>> reflect
>>>        that it happens to be implemented as a QTAILQ; so if you decide to 
>>> change
>>>        it later the migration compatibility doesn't break.
>>
>> (Just to clarify before Jianjun wakes up) a VMSTATE_ARRAY is just a
>> sequence of elements.  The count, if needed as in a VARRAY, is stored
>> earlier and separately.  Currently lists (including this QTAILQ) are
>> usually represented in the migration stream as a sequence of elements
>> preceded by "1" and terminated by a "0".  Would you like to change it to
>> a count + sequence as well?
>>
>> This would prevent using the new QTAILQ support for other existing lists
>> such as virtio-blk and scsi's request lists.
> 
> That depends if it's something you're trying to keep migration compatibility
> with;  if you're trying to keep format compaibility then sure keep it as is.
> If you're not trying to keep compatibility, then why can't virtio-blk or
> scsi request lists also use a count rather than the markers?

We're trying to keep compatibility, and I think it's among the last bits
that are resisting conversion to vmstate.  Which explains my interest in
Jianjun's patches. :)

Paolo

>>>   c) Use new trace_ names for get_qtailq rather than misusing 
>>> trace_vmstate_load_state*
>>>   d) Add a trace_ for put_qtailq as well - that way when it goes horribly 
>>> wrong we can
>>>      turn the tracing on on both sides :-)
>>>   e) Is there anyway to make QTAILQ_RAW_INSERT_TAIL any more readable?
>>>      I don't think I understand why you can't use the standard QTAILQ 
>>> macros.
>>
>> Because they assume a particular type. The "raw" version need to work on
>> void*.
> 
> Ah OK.
> 
> Dave
> 
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Paolo
>>
>>>   f) You might need to fix up Amit's scripts/vmstate-static-checker.py
> --
> Dr. David Alan Gilbert / address@hidden / Manchester, UK
>