From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1M8IMb-00026x-TW
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 24 May 2009 14:24:01 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1M8IMW-00026c-E4
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 24 May 2009 14:24:00 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=35619 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1M8IMW-00026Z-86
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 24 May 2009 14:23:56 -0400
Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:59635)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <paul@codesourcery.com>)
	id 1M8IMW-00088H-0I
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 24 May 2009 14:23:56 -0400
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4])
	by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <paul@codesourcery.com>) id 1M8IMU-0002Ws-27
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 24 May 2009 14:23:54 -0400
From: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] kvm: Mark full address range dirty on live
	migration start
Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 19:23:49 +0100
References: <4A171E71.1000701@web.de>
	<20090523134716.GB26811@poweredge.glommer>
In-Reply-To: <20090523134716.GB26811@poweredge.glommer>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200905241923.50218.paul@codesourcery.com>
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Glauber Costa <glommer@redhat.com>, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@web.de>

On Saturday 23 May 2009, Glauber Costa wrote:
> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 11:51:45PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > As Avi correctly noted, last_ram_offset does not mark the last physical
> > RAM address the guest may see (due to non-continuous memory regions).
> > Ensure that we catch them all by marking the full possible address range
> > dirty.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
>
> Indeed, we already do something in that lines in qemu-kvm tree,
> in a place that does not apply for  It makes a lot of sense. Just
> maybe you could just -1UL instead of defining a new constant, but I don't
> really care.

-1ul is wrong. -1 is correct.

Paul