On 5/26/25 12:36, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
On 5/20/25 12:28, Chenyi Qiang wrote:So that the caller can check the result of NotifyRamDiscard() handler if the operation fails. Signed-off-by: Chenyi Qiang <chenyi.qiang@xxxxxxxxx> --- Changes in v5: - Revert to use of NotifyRamDiscard() Changes in v4: - Newly added. --- hw/vfio/listener.c | 6 ++++-- include/system/memory.h | 4 ++-- system/ram-block-attribute.c | 3 +-- 3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/hw/vfio/listener.c b/hw/vfio/listener.c index bfacb3d8d9..06454e0584 100644 --- a/hw/vfio/listener.c +++ b/hw/vfio/listener.c @@ -190,8 +190,8 @@ out: rcu_read_unlock(); } -static void vfio_ram_discard_notify_discard(RamDiscardListener *rdl, - MemoryRegionSection *section) +static int vfio_ram_discard_notify_discard(RamDiscardListener *rdl, + MemoryRegionSection *section) { VFIORamDiscardListener *vrdl = container_of(rdl, VFIORamDiscardListener, listener); @@ -206,6 +206,8 @@ static void vfio_ram_discard_notify_discard(RamDiscardListener *rdl, error_report("%s: vfio_container_dma_unmap() failed: %s", __func__, strerror(-ret)); } + + return ret; }vfio_ram_discard_notify_populate() should also be modified to return this value.
Nope. It should not. This is a rollback path in case of error. All good. Thanks, C.
