On 5/26/25 12:36, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
On 5/20/25 12:28, Chenyi Qiang wrote:
So that the caller can check the result of NotifyRamDiscard() handler if
the operation fails.
Signed-off-by: Chenyi Qiang <chenyi.qi...@intel.com>
---
Changes in v5:
- Revert to use of NotifyRamDiscard()
Changes in v4:
- Newly added.
---
hw/vfio/listener.c | 6 ++++--
include/system/memory.h | 4 ++--
system/ram-block-attribute.c | 3 +--
3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/hw/vfio/listener.c b/hw/vfio/listener.c
index bfacb3d8d9..06454e0584 100644
--- a/hw/vfio/listener.c
+++ b/hw/vfio/listener.c
@@ -190,8 +190,8 @@ out:
rcu_read_unlock();
}
-static void vfio_ram_discard_notify_discard(RamDiscardListener *rdl,
- MemoryRegionSection *section)
+static int vfio_ram_discard_notify_discard(RamDiscardListener *rdl,
+ MemoryRegionSection *section)
{
VFIORamDiscardListener *vrdl = container_of(rdl, VFIORamDiscardListener,
listener);
@@ -206,6 +206,8 @@ static void
vfio_ram_discard_notify_discard(RamDiscardListener *rdl,
error_report("%s: vfio_container_dma_unmap() failed: %s", __func__,
strerror(-ret));
}
+
+ return ret;
}
vfio_ram_discard_notify_populate() should also be modified
to return this value.
Nope. It should not. This is a rollback path in case of error. All good.
Thanks,
C.
