Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3] dm_op: Add xendevicemodel_modified_memory_bulk.

[Jennifer Herbert <Jennifer.Herbert@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 29/03/17 15:54, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > On 28.03.17 at 15:18, <jennifer.herbert@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > @@ -441,13 +481,8 @@ static int dm_op(domid_t domid,
> > > >            struct xen_dm_op_modified_memory *data =
> > > >                &op.u.modified_memory;
> > > >    
> > > > -        const_op = false;
> > > > -
> > > > -        rc = -EINVAL;
> > > > -        if ( data->pad )
> > > > -            break;
> > > > -
> > > > -        rc = modified_memory(d, data);
> > > > +        rc = modified_memory(d, data, &bufs[1]);
> > > > +        const_op = (rc != 0);
> > > Isn't this wrong now, i.e. don't you need to copy back the
> > > header now in all cases?
> > I only define what I'll set nr_extents to in case of error, and of
> > course opaque
> > is opaque.
> Well, but you do need the opaque value for the continuation,
> don't you? In which case you need to also write back on
> -ERESTART. And as you say you need to write back in case
> of error. So I'd expect
>
>         const_op = !rc;
Quite right, see you point now - I didn't notice I'd inverted the logic.

-jenny


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel