[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH 11/52] migration/rdma: Drop rdma_add_block() error handling
From: |
Zhijian Li (Fujitsu) |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH 11/52] migration/rdma: Drop rdma_add_block() error handling |
Date: |
Thu, 21 Sep 2023 09:39:51 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.0 |
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);
Thanks
Zhijian
> trace_qemu_rdma_init_ram_blocks(local->nb_blocks);