Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] savevm: set right return value for qemu_file_rate_limit

[Lei Li]

PING? any comments?

On 07/24/2013 11:48 PM, Lei Li wrote:
> In the logic of ram_save_iterate(), it checks the ret of 
> qemu_file_rate_limit(f)
> by ret < 0 if there has been an error. But now it will never return 
> negative value
> because qemu_file_rate_limit() return 1 if qemu_file_get_error().
>
> Also the original implementation of qemu_file_rate_limit() as function
> buffered_rate_limit() did return negative for this situation.
>
>
> On 07/21/2013 08:56 PM, Lei Li wrote:
> > Commit 1964a397063967acc5ce71a2a24ed26e74824ee1 refactors rate
> > limiting to QEMUFile, but set the return value for qemu_file_rate_limit
> > to 1 in the case of qemu_file_get_error. It is wrong and should be 
> > negative
> > compared to the original function buffered_rate_limit and the current 
> > logic
> > in ram_save_iterate. As qemu_file_rate_limit is called manually to 
> > determine
> > if it has to exit, add the defination of the meaning of the return 
> > values
> > as well.
> >
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lei Li <address@hidden>
> > ---
> >   savevm.c |   14 ++++++++++++--
> >   1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/savevm.c b/savevm.c
> > index e0491e7..f406790 100644
> > --- a/savevm.c
> > +++ b/savevm.c
> > @@ -904,10 +904,20 @@ int64_t qemu_ftell(QEMUFile *f)
> >       return f->pos;
> >   }
> >
> > +/*
> > + * The meaning of the return values is:
> > + *   0: We can continue sending
> > + *   1: Time to stop
> > + *   negative: There has been an error
> > + */
> > +
> >   int qemu_file_rate_limit(QEMUFile *f)
> >   {
> > -    if (qemu_file_get_error(f)) {
> > -        return 1;
> > +    int ret;
> > +
> > +    ret = qemu_file_get_error(f);
> > +    if (ret) {
> > +        return ret;
> >       }
> >       if (f->xfer_limit > 0 && f->bytes_xfer > f->xfer_limit) {
> >           return 1;


--
Lei