On 08/08/2018 02:56 PM, Peter Xu wrote:
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.
So, are you talking about to modify the semantic of these functions,
ram_save_host_page(), ram_save_target_page(), etc, and make them
be:
"Returns the number of pages written where zero means no dirty pages,
error conditions are indicated in the QEMUFile @rs->file if it
happened."
If it's what you want, i will update the comments and make the
implementation more clear to reflect this fact for these
functions
