Let's factor out both checks, to be used in virtio-mem context next.

While at it, fix a spelling error in a related comment.

Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
---
 include/migration/misc.h |  6 +++++-
 migration/migration.c    | 14 ++++++++++++++
 migration/ram.c          | 16 ++--------------
 3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/migration/misc.h b/include/migration/misc.h
index 465906710d..c7e67a6804 100644
--- a/include/migration/misc.h
+++ b/include/migration/misc.h
@@ -67,8 +67,12 @@ bool migration_has_failed(MigrationState *);
 /* ...and after the device transmission */
 bool migration_in_postcopy_after_devices(MigrationState *);
 void migration_global_dump(Monitor *mon);
-/* True if incomming migration entered POSTCOPY_INCOMING_DISCARD */
+/* True if incoming migration entered POSTCOPY_INCOMING_DISCARD */
 bool migration_in_incoming_postcopy(void);
+/* True if incoming migration entered POSTCOPY_INCOMING_ADVISE */
+bool migration_incoming_postcopy_advised(void);
+/* True if incoming migration entered POSTCOPY_INCOMING_LISTENING */
+bool migration_incoming_postcopy_listening(void);
 /* True if background snapshot is active */
 bool migration_in_bg_snapshot(void);
 
diff --git a/migration/migration.c b/migration/migration.c
index 78b6bb8765..7a69bb93b0 100644
--- a/migration/migration.c
+++ b/migration/migration.c
@@ -2094,6 +2094,20 @@ bool migration_in_incoming_postcopy(void)
     return ps >= POSTCOPY_INCOMING_DISCARD && ps < POSTCOPY_INCOMING_END;
 }
 
+bool migration_incoming_postcopy_advised(void)
+{
+    PostcopyState ps = postcopy_state_get();
+
+    return ps >= POSTCOPY_INCOMING_ADVISE && ps < POSTCOPY_INCOMING_END;
+}
+
+bool migration_incoming_postcopy_listening(void)
+{
+    PostcopyState ps = postcopy_state_get();
+
+    return ps >= POSTCOPY_INCOMING_LISTENING && ps < POSTCOPY_INCOMING_END;
+}
+
 bool migration_in_bg_snapshot(void)
 {
     MigrationState *s = migrate_get_current();
diff --git a/migration/ram.c b/migration/ram.c
index 334309f1c6..44b063eccd 100644
--- a/migration/ram.c
+++ b/migration/ram.c
@@ -4091,18 +4091,6 @@ int ram_load_postcopy(QEMUFile *f, int channel)
     return ret;
 }
 
-static bool postcopy_is_advised(void)
-{
-    PostcopyState ps = postcopy_state_get();
-    return ps >= POSTCOPY_INCOMING_ADVISE && ps < POSTCOPY_INCOMING_END;
-}
-
-static bool postcopy_is_running(void)
-{
-    PostcopyState ps = postcopy_state_get();
-    return ps >= POSTCOPY_INCOMING_LISTENING && ps < POSTCOPY_INCOMING_END;
-}
-
 /*
  * Flush content of RAM cache into SVM's memory.
  * Only flush the pages that be dirtied by PVM or SVM or both.
@@ -4167,7 +4155,7 @@ static int ram_load_precopy(QEMUFile *f)
     MigrationIncomingState *mis = migration_incoming_get_current();
     int flags = 0, ret = 0, invalid_flags = 0, len = 0, i = 0;
     /* ADVISE is earlier, it shows the source has the postcopy capability on */
-    bool postcopy_advised = postcopy_is_advised();
+    bool postcopy_advised = migration_incoming_postcopy_advised();
     if (!migrate_use_compression()) {
         invalid_flags |= RAM_SAVE_FLAG_COMPRESS_PAGE;
     }
@@ -4365,7 +4353,7 @@ static int ram_load(QEMUFile *f, void *opaque, int version_id)
      * If system is running in postcopy mode, page inserts to host memory must
      * be atomic
      */
-    bool postcopy_running = postcopy_is_running();
+    bool postcopy_running = migration_incoming_postcopy_listening();
 
     seq_iter++;
 
-- 
2.38.1

On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 12:02:12PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> +bool migration_incoming_postcopy_listening(void)
> +{
> +    PostcopyState ps = postcopy_state_get();
> +
> +    return ps >= POSTCOPY_INCOMING_LISTENING && ps < POSTCOPY_INCOMING_END;
> +}

This name is misleading, IMHO.

The code means "we passed listening phase" but the name implies "we're
listening".  We can add the "incoming" into that if we want, though.

-- 
Peter Xu

On 05.01.23 18:18, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 12:02:12PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> +bool migration_incoming_postcopy_listening(void)
>> +{
>> +    PostcopyState ps = postcopy_state_get();
>> +
>> +    return ps >= POSTCOPY_INCOMING_LISTENING && ps < POSTCOPY_INCOMING_END;
>> +}
> 
> This name is misleading, IMHO.
> 
> The code means "we passed listening phase" but the name implies "we're
> listening".  We can add the "incoming" into that if we want, though.
> 

Let me call that migration_incoming_postcopy_running(). Thanks!

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb

On 09.01.23 15:39, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 05.01.23 18:18, Peter Xu wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 12:02:12PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> +bool migration_incoming_postcopy_listening(void)
>>> +{
>>> +    PostcopyState ps = postcopy_state_get();
>>> +
>>> +    return ps >= POSTCOPY_INCOMING_LISTENING && ps < POSTCOPY_INCOMING_END;
>>> +}
>>
>> This name is misleading, IMHO.
>>
>> The code means "we passed listening phase" but the name implies "we're
>> listening".  We can add the "incoming" into that if we want, though.
>>
> 
> Let me call that migration_incoming_postcopy_running(). Thanks!
> 

... which is also misleading. Let me just drop the sanity check and this 
function.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb