qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/5] migration: Remove unused functions


From: Amit Shah
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/5] migration: Remove unused functions
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 12:14:41 +0530

On (Tue) 24 Feb 2015 [17:28:36], Thomas Huth wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 14:58:29 +0530
> Amit Shah <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > On (Thu) 19 Feb 2015 [18:12:19], Thomas Huth wrote:
> > > dup_mig_bytes_transferred(), skipped_mig_bytes_transferred(),
> > > migrate_rdma_pin_all(), qsb_clone() and qsb_set_length()
> > > are completely unused and thus can be deleted.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <address@hidden>
> > > Cc: Juan Quintela <address@hidden>
> > > Cc: Amit Shah <address@hidden>
> > > ---
> > >  arch_init.c                   |   10 -------
> > >  include/migration/migration.h |    3 --
> > >  include/migration/qemu-file.h |    2 -
> > >  migration/migration.c         |    9 -------
> > >  migration/qemu-file-buf.c     |   53 
> > > -----------------------------------------
> > >  5 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 77 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/arch_init.c b/arch_init.c
> > > index 89c8fa4..ad5ce28 100644
> > > --- a/arch_init.c
> > > +++ b/arch_init.c
> > > @@ -249,21 +249,11 @@ static void acct_clear(void)
> > >      memset(&acct_info, 0, sizeof(acct_info));
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > -uint64_t dup_mig_bytes_transferred(void)
> > > -{
> > > -    return acct_info.dup_pages * TARGET_PAGE_SIZE;
> > > -}
> > > -
> > >  uint64_t dup_mig_pages_transferred(void)
> > >  {
> > >      return acct_info.dup_pages;
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > -uint64_t skipped_mig_bytes_transferred(void)
> > > -{
> > > -    return acct_info.skipped_pages * TARGET_PAGE_SIZE;
> > > -}
> > 
> > These could be used for reporting; Juan, any idea why these aren't
> > used?
> 
> Since they are very trivial, I think they could easily be re-added
> again in case they are needed again in the future.
> Or if you prefer, I can also rework my patch so that these two
> functions won't get deleted.

I'm just asking Juan if he knows why these are around; I don't mind if
we get rid of them, but good to get confirmation from Juan (else we
needlessly end up churning code).

                Amit



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]