* Peter Xu (pet...@redhat.com) wrote:
> Per the title, remove the return code and simplify the callers as the errors
> will never be triggered. No functional change intended.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilb...@redhat.com>
> ---
> migration/postcopy-ram.c | 25 ++++---------------------
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/migration/postcopy-ram.c b/migration/postcopy-ram.c
> index 6be510fea4..738cc55fa6 100644
> --- a/migration/postcopy-ram.c
> +++ b/migration/postcopy-ram.c
> @@ -890,15 +890,11 @@ static void mark_postcopy_blocktime_end(uintptr_t addr)
> affected_cpu);
> }
>
> -static bool postcopy_pause_fault_thread(MigrationIncomingState *mis)
> +static void postcopy_pause_fault_thread(MigrationIncomingState *mis)
> {
> trace_postcopy_pause_fault_thread();
> -
> qemu_sem_wait(&mis->postcopy_pause_sem_fault);
> -
> trace_postcopy_pause_fault_thread_continued();
> -
> - return true;
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -958,13 +954,7 @@ static void *postcopy_ram_fault_thread(void *opaque)
> * broken already using the event. We should hold until
> * the channel is rebuilt.
> */
> - if (postcopy_pause_fault_thread(mis)) {
> - /* Continue to read the userfaultfd */
> - } else {
> - error_report("%s: paused but don't allow to continue",
> - __func__);
> - break;
> - }
> + postcopy_pause_fault_thread(mis);
> }
>
> if (pfd[1].revents) {
> @@ -1038,15 +1028,8 @@ retry:
> msg.arg.pagefault.address);
> if (ret) {
> /* May be network failure, try to wait for recovery */
> - if (postcopy_pause_fault_thread(mis)) {
> - /* We got reconnected somehow, try to continue */
> - goto retry;
> - } else {
> - /* This is a unavoidable fault */
> - error_report("%s: postcopy_request_page() get %d",
> - __func__, ret);
> - break;
> - }
> + postcopy_pause_fault_thread(mis);
> + goto retry;
> }
> }
>
> --
> 2.32.0
>
--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
