On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 03:42:32PM +0200, Juan Quintela wrote:
[...]
> static int multifd_send_page(uint8_t *address)
> {
> - int i;
> + int i, j;
> MultiFDSendParams *p = NULL; /* make happy gcc */
> + static multifd_pages_t pages;
> + static bool once;
> +
> + if (!once) {
> + multifd_init_group(&pages);
> + once = true;
Would it be good to put the "pages" into multifd_send_state? One is to
stick globals together; another benefit is that we can remove the
"once" here: we can then init the "pages" when init multifd_send_state
struct (but maybe with a better name?...).
(there are similar static variables in multifd_recv_page() as well, if
this one applies, then we can possibly use multifd_recv_state for
that one)
> + }
> +
> + pages.iov[pages.num].iov_base = address;
> + pages.iov[pages.num].iov_len = TARGET_PAGE_SIZE;
> + pages.num++;
> +
> + if (pages.num < (pages.size - 1)) {
> + return UINT16_MAX;
Nit: shall we define something for readability? Like:
#define MULTIFD_FD_INVALID UINT16_MAX
> + }
>
> qemu_sem_wait(&multifd_send_state->sem);
> qemu_mutex_lock(&multifd_send_state->mutex);
> @@ -530,7 +559,12 @@ static int multifd_send_page(uint8_t *address)
> }
> qemu_mutex_unlock(&multifd_send_state->mutex);
> qemu_mutex_lock(&p->mutex);
> - p->address = address;
> + p->pages.num = pages.num;
> + for (j = 0; j < pages.size; j++) {
> + p->pages.iov[j].iov_base = pages.iov[j].iov_base;
> + p->pages.iov[j].iov_len = pages.iov[j].iov_len;
> + }
> + pages.num = 0;
> qemu_mutex_unlock(&p->mutex);
> qemu_sem_post(&p->sem);
>
> --
> 2.9.4
>
--
Peter Xu
