qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v12 18/21] migration: Start sending messages


From: Juan Quintela
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v12 18/21] migration: Start sending messages
Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 12:51:15 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.3 (gnu/linux)

"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <address@hidden> wrote:
> * Juan Quintela (address@hidden) wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Juan Quintela <address@hidden>
>> ---
>>  migration/ram.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>>  1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/migration/ram.c b/migration/ram.c
>> index 862ec53d32..9adbaa81f9 100644
>> --- a/migration/ram.c
>> +++ b/migration/ram.c
>> @@ -625,9 +625,6 @@ static int multifd_recv_unfill_packet(MultiFDRecvParams 
>> *p, Error **errp)
>>      RAMBlock *block;
>>      int i;
>>  
>> -    /* ToDo: We can't use it until we haven't received a message */
>> -    return 0;
>> -
>>      be32_to_cpus(&packet->magic);
>>      if (packet->magic != MULTIFD_MAGIC) {
>>          error_setg(errp, "multifd: received packet "
>> @@ -851,6 +848,7 @@ static void *multifd_send_thread(void *opaque)
>>  {
>>      MultiFDSendParams *p = opaque;
>>      Error *local_err = NULL;
>> +    int ret;
>>  
>>      trace_multifd_send_thread_start(p->id);
>>  
>> @@ -878,10 +876,18 @@ static void *multifd_send_thread(void *opaque)
>>  
>>              trace_multifd_send(p->id, seq, used, flags);
>>  
>> -            /* ToDo: send packet here */
>> +            ret = qio_channel_write_all(p->c, (void *)p->packet,
>> +                                        p->packet_len, &local_err);
>> +            if (ret != 0) {
>> +                break;
>> +            }
>> +
>> +            ret = qio_channel_writev_all(p->c, p->pages->iov, used, 
>> &local_err);
>> +            if (ret != 0) {
>> +                break;
>> +            }
>>  
>>              qemu_mutex_lock(&p->mutex);
>> -            p->flags = 0;
>
> What's this change?

Leftover from previous approach on patch 16, we already do that
assignment several lines before.  Removed it on patch 16 as it should.

Thanks, Juan.



reply via email to

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