[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH RFC 1/9] KVM: Fixup kvm_log_clear_one_slot() ioctl return che
From: |
Peter Xu |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH RFC 1/9] KVM: Fixup kvm_log_clear_one_slot() ioctl return check |
Date: |
Wed, 25 Mar 2020 13:43:02 -0400 |
On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 09:17:41AM -0500, Peter Xu wrote:
> kvm_vm_ioctl() handles the errno trick already for ioctl() on
> returning -1 for errors. Fix this.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <address@hidden>
> ---
> accel/kvm/kvm-all.c | 5 ++---
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/accel/kvm/kvm-all.c b/accel/kvm/kvm-all.c
> index c111312dfd..4be3cd2352 100644
> --- a/accel/kvm/kvm-all.c
> +++ b/accel/kvm/kvm-all.c
> @@ -688,14 +688,13 @@ static int kvm_log_clear_one_slot(KVMSlot *mem, int
> as_id, uint64_t start,
> d.num_pages = bmap_npages;
> d.slot = mem->slot | (as_id << 16);
>
> - if (kvm_vm_ioctl(s, KVM_CLEAR_DIRTY_LOG, &d) == -1) {
> - ret = -errno;
> + ret = kvm_vm_ioctl(s, KVM_CLEAR_DIRTY_LOG, &d);
Dave raised a question offlist when comparing with KVM_GET_DIRTY_LOG,
regarding 50212d6346 ("Revert "fix return check for KVM_GET_DIRTY_LOG
ioctl"", 2014-04-14) where we wanted to allow KVM_GET_DIRTY_LOG to
fail for some cases. I didn't find any context of that, and from the
first glance I don't understand why and when we'll get -ENOENT during
sync dirty log (we should have BQL held, so I don't know why a memslot
can be gone underneath). Anyone knows more?
CCing Peter Maydell and Michael Tokarev too.
> + if (ret) {
> error_report("%s: KVM_CLEAR_DIRTY_LOG failed, slot=%d, "
> "start=0x%"PRIx64", size=0x%"PRIx32", errno=%d",
> __func__, d.slot, (uint64_t)d.first_page,
> (uint32_t)d.num_pages, ret);
> } else {
> - ret = 0;
> trace_kvm_clear_dirty_log(d.slot, d.first_page, d.num_pages);
> }
>
> --
> 2.24.1
>
--
Peter Xu