* Juan Quintela (quint...@redhat.com) wrote:
> We were using the iov directly, but we will need this info on the
> following patch.
Yes I think so; have you considered that really need to check the
fields of MultiFD*Params to see which fields you're actually using?
Reviewed-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilb...@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Juan Quintela <quint...@redhat.com>
> ---
> migration/multifd.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/migration/multifd.c b/migration/multifd.c
> index 55d99a8232..0533da154a 100644
> --- a/migration/multifd.c
> +++ b/migration/multifd.c
> @@ -354,6 +354,7 @@ static int multifd_recv_unfill_packet(MultiFDRecvParams
> *p, Error **errp)
> return -1;
> }
>
> + p->pages->block = block;
> for (i = 0; i < p->pages->num; i++) {
> uint64_t offset = be64_to_cpu(packet->offset[i]);
>
> @@ -363,6 +364,7 @@ static int multifd_recv_unfill_packet(MultiFDRecvParams
> *p, Error **errp)
> offset, block->used_length);
> return -1;
> }
> + p->pages->offset[i] = offset;
> p->pages->iov[i].iov_base = block->host + offset;
> p->pages->iov[i].iov_len = page_size;
> }
> --
> 2.33.1
>
--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
