Re: [PATCH 02/21] migration: Don't use INT64_MAX for unlimited rate

[Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>]

Cédric Le Goater <clg@kaod.org> wrote:
> On 5/9/23 13:51, Juan Quintela wrote:
>> Harsh Prateek Bora <harshpb@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/8/23 18:38, Juan Quintela wrote:
>>>> Use 0 instead.
>>>> Signed-off-by: Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    migration/migration.c | 4 ++--
>>>>    migration/qemu-file.c | 3 +++
>>>>    2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>> diff --git a/migration/migration.c b/migration/migration.c
>>>> index 1192f1ebf1..3979a98949 100644
>>>> --- a/migration/migration.c
>>>> +++ b/migration/migration.c
>>>> @@ -2296,7 +2296,7 @@ static void migration_completion(MigrationState *s)
>>>>                }
>>>>                if (ret >= 0) {
>>>>                    s->block_inactive = !migrate_colo();
>>>> -                qemu_file_set_rate_limit(s->to_dst_file, INT64_MAX);
>>>> +                qemu_file_set_rate_limit(s->to_dst_file, 0);
>>>
>>> #define RATE_LIMIT_MAX 0
>>>
>>> How about having a macro and use that which conveys the meaning in all
>>> call instances wherever it is getting passed ?
>> I almost preffer the macro.
>>        qemu_file_set_rate_limit(s->to_dst_file, RATE_LIMIT_MAX);
>> seems quite explanatory?
>
> yep. and I would drop the comment qemu_file_rate_limit().

I dropped it once by error.
And reviewer didn't noticed either.

So ....