"Zhijian Li (Fujitsu)" <lizhij...@fujitsu.com> writes:
> 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<arm...@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);
The "the callback doesn't fail" is a non-local argument. The assertion
checks it. I'd be fine with dropping it, since the argument is
straightforward enough. Thoughts?
