From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:54525)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1UPbgg-000396-AW
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Apr 2013 12:46:27 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1UPbgf-00021x-72
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Apr 2013 12:46:26 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:30454)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1UPbge-00021j-VI
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Apr 2013 12:46:25 -0400
Message-ID: <516445B1.6040306@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 18:45:37 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1365476681-31593-1-git-send-email-mrhines@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<1365476681-31593-13-git-send-email-mrhines@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <1365476681-31593-13-git-send-email-mrhines@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH RDMA support v5: 12/12] don't set
 nonblock on invalid file descriptor
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: mrhines@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: aliguori@us.ibm.com, mst@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, owasserm@redhat.com, abali@us.ibm.com, mrhines@us.ibm.com, gokul@us.ibm.com

Il 09/04/2013 05:04, mrhines@linux.vnet.ibm.com ha scritto:
> index 4e4b819..0b398f4 100644
> --- a/util/oslib-posix.c
> +++ b/util/oslib-posix.c
> @@ -144,6 +144,8 @@ void qemu_set_block(int fd)
>  void qemu_set_nonblock(int fd)
>  {
>      int f;
> +    if(fd == -1)
> +        return;
>      f = fcntl(fd, F_GETFL);
>      fcntl(fd, F_SETFL, f | O_NONBLOCK);
>  }
> -- 1.7.10.4

Do you need to remove the assertion in process_incoming_migration, too?

I would prefer to touch process_incoming_migration instead, actually,
replacing the assertion with an if() there.

Paolo