Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v11 09/15] rdma: new QEMUFileOps hooks

[Paolo Bonzini]

Il 25/06/2013 15:38, Michael R. Hines ha scritto:
> On 06/25/2013 07:51 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
>> address@hidden wrote:
>>> From: "Michael R. Hines" <address@hidden>
>>>
>>> These are the prototypes and implementation of new hooks that
>>> RDMA takes advantage of to perform dynamic page registration.
>>>
>>> An optional hook is also introduced for a custom function
>>> to be able to override the default save_page function.
>>>
>>> Also included are the prototypes and accessor methods used by
>>> arch_init.c which invoke funtions inside savevm.c to call out
>>> to the hooks that may or may not have been overridden
>>> inside of QEMUFileOps.
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden>
>>> Reviewed-by: Chegu Vinod <address@hidden>
>>> Tested-by: Chegu Vinod <address@hidden>
>>> Tested-by: Michael R. Hines <address@hidden>
>>> Signed-off-by: Michael R. Hines <address@hidden>
>> Hi
>>
>>
>>> +void ram_control_before_iterate(QEMUFile *f, uint64_t flags)
>>> +{
>>> +    int ret = 0;
>>> +
>>> +    if (f->ops->before_ram_iterate) {
>>> +        ret = f->ops->before_ram_iterate(f, f->opaque, flags);
>>> +        if (ret < 0) {
>>> +            qemu_file_set_error(f, ret);
>>> +        }
>>> +    }
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +void ram_control_after_iterate(QEMUFile *f, uint64_t flags)
>>> +{
>>> +    int ret = 0;
>>> +
>>> +    if (f->ops->after_ram_iterate) {
>>> +        ret = f->ops->after_ram_iterate(f, f->opaque, flags);
>>> +        if (ret < 0) {
>>> +            qemu_file_set_error(f, ret);
>>> +        }
>>> +    }
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +void ram_control_load_hook(QEMUFile *f, uint64_t flags)
>>> +{
>>> +    int ret = 0;
>>> +
>>> +    if (f->ops->hook_ram_load) {
>>> +        ret = f->ops->hook_ram_load(f, f->opaque, flags);
>>> +        if (ret < 0) {
>>> +            qemu_file_set_error(f, ret);
>>> +        }
>>> +    } else {
>>> +        qemu_file_set_error(f, ret);
>>> +    }
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +size_t ram_control_save_page(QEMUFile *f, ram_addr_t block_offset,
>>> +                         ram_addr_t offset, size_t size, int
>>> *bytes_sent)
>>> +{
>>> +    if (f->ops->save_page) {
>>> +        int ret = f->ops->save_page(f, f->opaque, block_offset,
>>> +                                    offset, size, bytes_sent);
>>> +
>>> +        if (ret != RAM_SAVE_CONTROL_DELAYED) {
>>> +            if (*bytes_sent > 0) {
>>> +                qemu_update_position(f, *bytes_sent);
>>> +            } else if (ret < 0) {
>>> +                qemu_file_set_error(f, ret);
>>> +            }
>>> +        }
>>> +
>>> +        return ret;
>>> +    }
>>> +
>>> +    return RAM_SAVE_CONTROL_NOT_SUPP;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>>   static void qemu_fill_buffer(QEMUFile *f)
>>>   {
>>>       int len;
>> I wou0ld clame that the calls to this functions belong to this patch.
>> Not that it makes a lot of difference though.
>>
>> Later,  Juan.
>>
> 
> I'll avoid rebasing if there's no strong objection - as this ordering
> was suggested by Paolo.

Indeed, it made my review a bit easier.

Paolo