On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 03:23:22PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote: > > > 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 Not really; I am just unclear about how this patch could help current code, however I have no objection on the content. Let's see whether Dave or Juan would like it. Thanks, -- Peter Xu
