Re: [PATCH 11/52] migration/rdma: Drop rdma_add_block() error handling

[Markus Armbruster]

"Zhijian Li (Fujitsu)" <lizhijian@fujitsu.com> writes:

> On 18/09/2023 22:41, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> rdma_add_block() can't fail.  Return void, and drop the unreachable
>> error handling.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster<armbru@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>   migration/rdma.c | 30 +++++++++---------------------
>>   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>> 
>
> [...]
>
>>    * during dynamic page registration.
>>    */
>> -static int qemu_rdma_init_ram_blocks(RDMAContext *rdma)
>> +static void qemu_rdma_init_ram_blocks(RDMAContext *rdma)
>>   {
>>       RDMALocalBlocks *local = &rdma->local_ram_blocks;
>>       int ret;
>> @@ -646,14 +645,11 @@ static int qemu_rdma_init_ram_blocks(RDMAContext *rdma)
>>       assert(rdma->blockmap == NULL);
>>       memset(local, 0, sizeof *local);
>>       ret = foreach_not_ignored_block(qemu_rdma_init_one_block, rdma);
>> -    if (ret) {
>> -        return ret;
>> -    }
>> +    assert(!ret);
>
> Why we still need a new assert(), can we remove the ret together.
>
>      foreach_not_ignored_block(qemu_rdma_init_one_block, rdma);
>      trace_qemu_rdma_init_ram_blocks(local->nb_blocks);

The "the callback doesn't fail" is a non-local argument.  The assertion
checks it.  I'd be fine with dropping it, since the argument is
straightforward enough.  Thoughts?