From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42652) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VCnSk-0000c5-Hm for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 05:15:28 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VCnSe-00039O-DS for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 05:15:22 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:33518) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VCnSe-00039G-6q for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 05:15:16 -0400 Message-ID: <521727F2.8070007@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 11:14:26 +0200 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1377069536-12658-1-git-send-email-lilei@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1377069536-12658-5-git-send-email-lilei@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <52149998.7070004@redhat.com> <5216D488.2090305@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1346435024.3140056.1377236057706.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> <5217275C.3030104@linux.vnet.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <5217275C.3030104@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 04/18] savevm: set right return value for qemu_file_rate_limit List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Lei Li Cc: aarcange@redhat.com, quintela@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, mrhines@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Anthony Liguori , lagarcia@br.ibm.com, rcj@linux.vnet.ibm.com Il 23/08/2013 11:11, Lei Li ha scritto: > > In qemu_savevm_state_iterate(), if the return of ram_save_iterate < 0, > it will set error in QEMUFile by qemu_file_set_error(f, ret), the error > reported by qemu_file_get_error() in the QEMUFile is got from > qemu_file_set_error() by reading the f->last_error, right? > > And now as qemu_file_rate_limit() never return negative value, what's the > meaning for the check: if (qemu_file_rate_limit(f) < 0) in > ram_save_iterate()? I only see a "while ((ret = qemu_file_rate_limit(f)) == 0)", no less-than-zero check. Are we looking at the same code? :) Paolo