On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 02:29:52PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote: > > > On 08/08/2018 01:08 PM, Peter Xu wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 05:12:07PM +0800, guangrong.xiao@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > From: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > ram_find_and_save_block() can return negative if any error hanppens, > > > however, it is completely ignored in current code > > > > Could you hint me where we'll return an error? > > > > I think control_save_page() may return a error condition but i am not > good at it ... Other places look safe _currently_. These functions were > designed to have error returned anyway. Ah, the RDMA codes... Then I feel like this patch would be more suitable to be put into some of the RDMA series - at least we'd better be clear about what errors we're going to capture. For non-RDMA, it seems a bit helpless after all - AFAIU we're depending on the few qemu_file_get_error() calls to detect output errors. > > > (Anyway I agree that the error handling is not that good, mostly > > because the QEMUFile APIs does not provide proper return code, e.g., > > qemu_put_be64 returns void) > > > > Yes, it is, the returned error condition is mixed in file's API and > function's return value... :( > Regards, -- Peter Xu
