Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 06:06:04PM +0200, Juan Quintela wrote:
>> Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 03:42:32PM +0200, Juan Quintela wrote:
>> >
>> > [...]
>> >
>> >> static int multifd_send_page(uint8_t *address)
>> >> {
>> >> - int i;
>> >> + int i, j;
>> >> MultiFDSendParams *p = NULL; /* make happy gcc */
>> >> + static multifd_pages_t pages;
>> >> + static bool once;
>> >> +
>> >> + if (!once) {
>> >> + multifd_init_group(&pages);
>> >> + once = true;
>> >
>> > Would it be good to put the "pages" into multifd_send_state? One is to
>> > stick globals together; another benefit is that we can remove the
>> > "once" here: we can then init the "pages" when init multifd_send_state
>> > struct (but maybe with a better name?...).
>>
>> I did to be able to free it.
>
> Free it? But they a static variables, then how can we free them?
>
> (I thought the only way to free it is putting it into
> multifd_send_state...)
>
> Something I must have missed here. :(
I did the change that you suggested in response to a comment from Dave
that asked where I freed it. I see that my sentence was ambigous.
>
>>
>> > (there are similar static variables in multifd_recv_page() as well, if
>> > this one applies, then we can possibly use multifd_recv_state for
>> > that one)
>>
>> Also there.
>>
>> >> + }
>> >> +
>> >> + pages.iov[pages.num].iov_base = address;
>> >> + pages.iov[pages.num].iov_len = TARGET_PAGE_SIZE;
>> >> + pages.num++;
>> >> +
>> >> + if (pages.num < (pages.size - 1)) {
>> >> + return UINT16_MAX;
>> >
>> > Nit: shall we define something for readability? Like:
>> >
>> > #define MULTIFD_FD_INVALID UINT16_MAX
>>
>> Also done.
>>
>> MULTIFD_CONTINUE
>>
>> But I am open to changes.
>
> It's clear enough at least to me. Thanks!
Thanks, Juan.
