* Juan Quintela (quint...@redhat.com) wrote:
> "Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git)" <dgilb...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilb...@redhat.com>
> >
> > Add a wrapper to change the blocking status on a QEMUFile
> > rather than having to use qemu_set_block(qemu_get_fd(f));
> > it seems best to avoid exposing the fd since not all QEMUFile's
> > really have one. With this wrapper we could move the implementation
> > down to be different on different transports.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilb...@redhat.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Amit Shah <amit.s...@redhat.com>
>
> Reviewed-by: Juan Quintela <quint...@redhat.com>
>
> Can we improve naming?
>
> > ---
> > include/migration/qemu-file.h | 1 +
> > migration/qemu-file.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/migration/qemu-file.h b/include/migration/qemu-file.h
> > index 29a9d69..d43c835 100644
> > --- a/include/migration/qemu-file.h
> > +++ b/include/migration/qemu-file.h
> > @@ -193,6 +193,7 @@ int qemu_file_get_error(QEMUFile *f);
> > void qemu_file_set_error(QEMUFile *f, int ret);
> > int qemu_file_shutdown(QEMUFile *f);
> > void qemu_fflush(QEMUFile *f);
> > +void qemu_file_change_blocking(QEMUFile *f, bool block);
> >
> > static inline void qemu_put_be64s(QEMUFile *f, const uint64_t *pv)
> > {
> > diff --git a/migration/qemu-file.c b/migration/qemu-file.c
> > index c111a6b..c746129 100644
> > --- a/migration/qemu-file.c
> > +++ b/migration/qemu-file.c
> > @@ -651,3 +651,18 @@ size_t qemu_get_counted_string(QEMUFile *f, char
> > buf[256])
> >
> > return res == len ? res : 0;
> > }
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Change the blocking state of the QEMUFile.
> > + * Note: On some transports the OS only keeps a single blocking state for
> > + * both directions, and thus changing the blocking on the main
> > + * QEMUFile can also affect the return path.
> > + */
> > +void qemu_file_change_blocking(QEMUFile *f, bool block)
>
> qemu_file_set_blocking?
>
> It don't change the blocking, it just do whatever block says?
>
> > +{
> > + if (block) {
> > + qemu_set_block(qemu_get_fd(f));
> > + } else {
> > + qemu_set_nonblock(qemu_get_fd(f));
> > + }
> > +}
I worry about having a:
qemu_file_set_blocking
and a
qemu_set_block
it sounds a bit similar when one always 'sets' (i.e. turns on)
and the other either turns on or off.
Dave
--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
