* Juan Quintela (quint...@redhat.com) wrote:
> Now that we check that the value passed is a power of 2, we don't need
> to play games when comparing what is the size that is going to take
> the cache.
>
> Signed-off-by: Juan Quintela <quint...@redhat.com>
> ---
> migration/ram.c | 11 ++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/migration/ram.c b/migration/ram.c
> index 47501460c8..c84f22d759 100644
> --- a/migration/ram.c
> +++ b/migration/ram.c
> @@ -135,12 +135,14 @@ int64_t xbzrle_cache_resize(int64_t new_size, Error
> **errp)
> return -1;
> }
>
> + if (new_size == migrate_xbzrle_cache_size()) {
> + /* nothing to do */
> + return new_size;
> + }
> +
OK, that's interesting - this test is before the XBZRLE != NULL check;
so the old code would cause allocation if there was no cache; but I
think ram_state_init makes that irrelevant, so we're OK.
Reviewed-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilb...@redhat.com>
> XBZRLE_cache_lock();
>
> if (XBZRLE.cache != NULL) {
> - if (pow2floor(new_size) == migrate_xbzrle_cache_size()) {
> - goto out_new_size;
> - }
> new_cache = cache_init(new_size, TARGET_PAGE_SIZE, errp);
> if (!new_cache) {
> ret = -1;
> @@ -151,8 +153,7 @@ int64_t xbzrle_cache_resize(int64_t new_size, Error
> **errp)
> XBZRLE.cache = new_cache;
> }
>
> -out_new_size:
> - ret = pow2floor(new_size);
> + ret = new_size;
> out:
> XBZRLE_cache_unlock();
> return ret;
> --
> 2.13.6
>
--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
