On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 06:06:04PM +0200, Juan Quintela wrote:
> Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > 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?...).
>
> I did to be able to free it.
Free it? But they a static variables, then how can we free them?
(I thought the only way to free it is putting it into
multifd_send_state...)
Something I must have missed here. :(
>
> > (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)
>
> Also there.
>
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + 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
>
> Also done.
>
> MULTIFD_CONTINUE
>
> But I am open to changes.
It's clear enough at least to me. Thanks!
--
Peter Xu
