From: Yoshisato YANAGISAWA Subject: Re: Design document of Kemari Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:16:38 +0900 Message-ID: <49B63E06.2030402@lab.ntt.co.jp> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Keir Fraser Cc: xen-devel , Yoshiaki Tamura List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 2009/03/10 17:21, Keir Fraser wrote: > On 09/03/2009 22:28, "Yoshiaki Tamura" > wrote: > >>> xc_domain_{save,restore} and xc_dom_kemari_{save,restore} look to have quite >>> a bit in common. >> Yes they do. We kept the original xc_domain_{save,restore} to make kemari >> specific part less intrusive. If you suggest to integrate them, we would >> certainly do so. Would that be appropriate? > > Yes, we prefer a merged save/restore codebase. Since Kemari requires transaction-like feature, xc_dom_kemari_save should wait acknowledgment from xc_dom_kemari_restore. Xc_dom_kemari_restore should also buffer data until complete snapshot received from xc_dom_kemari_save. Because of this reason, there might be large if-else statements if those code are merged. Isn't it make xc_domain_save and xc_domain_restore too complexed? -- Yoshisato YANAGISAWA, Ph.D. Open Source Software Computing Project NTT Cyber Space Laboratories NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION 1-1 Hikarinooka, Yokosuka-Shi, Kanagawa 239-0847, Japan