* Peter Maydell (peter.mayd...@linaro.org) wrote: > 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.
I'll patch it to check it, it's an easy enough check. (Although how well a failure cleans up in practice could be fun). Dave > thanks > -- PMM -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
