On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 11:55, Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git) <dgilb...@redhat.com> wrote: > > From: Yury Kotov <yury-ko...@yandex-team.ru> > > If ignore-shared capability is set then skip shared RAMBlocks during the > RAM migration. > Also, move qemu_ram_foreach_migratable_block (and rename) to the > migration code, because it requires access to the migration capabilities. >
> --- a/migration/rdma.c > +++ b/migration/rdma.c > @@ -644,7 +644,7 @@ static int qemu_rdma_init_ram_blocks(RDMAContext *rdma) > > assert(rdma->blockmap == NULL); > memset(local, 0, sizeof *local); > - qemu_ram_foreach_migratable_block(qemu_rdma_init_one_block, rdma); > + foreach_not_ignored_block(qemu_rdma_init_one_block, rdma); > trace_qemu_rdma_init_ram_blocks(local->nb_blocks); > rdma->dest_blocks = g_new0(RDMADestBlock, > rdma->local_ram_blocks.nb_blocks); Hi. This change causes Coverity to gripe (CID 1399413) because the return value from foreach_not_ignored_block() is ignored here but it is checked on every other use of the function. This is one of those Coverity errors where it's just using a sometimes-wrong heuristic, so we could just mark it as a false positive (AFAICT qemu_rdma_init_one_block() always returns 0), but OTOH rdma_add_block() and qemu_rdma_init_one_block() carefully pipe through a return value, so maybe it's worth assert()ing in case somebody changes rdma_add_block() to maybe fail later? I don't think there's much in it -- let me know if you just want me to mark the issue as a false positive. thanks -- PMM
