From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46215) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VCneA-00086C-MF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 05:27:19 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VCne1-0007Tv-I0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 05:27:10 -0400 Received: from e28smtp07.in.ibm.com ([122.248.162.7]:37880) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VCne0-0007TN-Sz for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 05:27:01 -0400 Received: from /spool/local by e28smtp07.in.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 14:47:53 +0530 Received: from d28relay05.in.ibm.com (d28relay05.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.62]) by d28dlp03.in.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02E801258055 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 14:56:42 +0530 (IST) Received: from d28av04.in.ibm.com (d28av04.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.66]) by d28relay05.in.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id r7N9QpBB46465260 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 14:56:51 +0530 Received: from d28av04.in.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d28av04.in.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id r7N9QrG2014143 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 14:56:54 +0530 Message-ID: <52172A95.6050202@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 17:25:41 +0800 From: Lei Li 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> <521727F2.8070007@redhat.com> <521728DC.1060109@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <521729D9.6040409@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <521729D9.6040409@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed 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: Paolo Bonzini 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 On 08/23/2013 05:22 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 23/08/2013 11:18, Lei Li ha scritto: >>>> 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? :) >> I think so, hehe. >> You might want to look a little more. After the while(..), there is a >> check: >> >> if (ret < 0) { >> bytes_transferred += total_sent; >> return ret; >> } > Aha, there you are. It's dead code, you can delete it. Sure, I will send it along with other two patches you reviewed positively. :) > > Paolo > -- Lei