On 09.04.25 07:43, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
On 7/4/25 17:49, Chenyi Qiang wrote:
Update ReplayRamDiscard() function to return the result and unify the
ReplayRamPopulate() and ReplayRamDiscard() to ReplayStateChange() at
the same time due to their identical definitions. This unification
simplifies related structures, such as VirtIOMEMReplayData, which makes
it more cleaner and maintainable.
Signed-off-by: Chenyi Qiang <chenyi.qi...@intel.com>
---
Changes in v4:
- Modify the commit message. We won't use Replay() operation when
doing the attribute change like v3.
Changes in v3:
- Newly added.
---
hw/virtio/virtio-mem.c | 20 ++++++++++----------
include/exec/memory.h | 31 ++++++++++++++++---------------
migration/ram.c | 5 +++--
system/memory.c | 12 ++++++------
4 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
diff --git a/hw/virtio/virtio-mem.c b/hw/virtio/virtio-mem.c
index d0d3a0240f..1a88d649cb 100644
--- a/hw/virtio/virtio-mem.c
+++ b/hw/virtio/virtio-mem.c
@@ -1733,7 +1733,7 @@ static bool virtio_mem_rdm_is_populated(const
RamDiscardManager *rdm,
}
struct VirtIOMEMReplayData {
- void *fn;
+ ReplayStateChange fn;
s/ReplayStateChange/ReplayRamStateChange/
Just "State" is way too generic imho.
Right, but raised in my review, the "Change" is wrong, it's not a change.
ReplayRamState ... ReplayRamDiscardState or sth like that ?
After all, it's the "RAM Discard manager".
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
