From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:60023)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <alevy@redhat.com>) id 1RzOSj-0001U9-Oz
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 03:19:15 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <alevy@redhat.com>) id 1RzOSg-0002PW-L0
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 03:19:09 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:23103)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <alevy@redhat.com>) id 1RzOSg-0002PK-BK
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 03:19:06 -0500
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:19:00 +0200
From: Alon Levy <alevy@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20120220081900.GV23926@garlic.redhat.com>
References: <1329491433-31446-1-git-send-email-kraxel@redhat.com>
	<1329491433-31446-5-git-send-email-kraxel@redhat.com>
	<20120217193918.GH23926@garlic.redhat.com>
	<4F41FD8E.60406@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4F41FD8E.60406@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Spice-devel] [PATCH 4/4] [experimental] add
 optinal 64bit vram bar to qxl
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
Cc: spice-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 09:00:14AM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>   Hi,
> 
> > I guess you will s/4/QXL_VRAM64_RANGE_INDEX/ when you send the
> > spice-protocol patch?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> >> -    if (qxl->vram_size < 4096) {
> >> -        qxl->vram_size = 4096;
> >> +    if (qxl->vram_size < qxl->vram32_size) {
> >> +        qxl->vram_size = qxl->vram32_size;
> > 
> > Am I reading correctly that you want the 64bit bar to be at least the
> > size of the 32bit bar? why?
> 
> The 64bit bar isn't additional memory.  Both 32bit and 64bit bar are
> backed by the same memory, the 64bit bar is just a different way to
> access it.  So it doesn't make sense at all to make the 64bit bar
> smaller than the 32bit bar.  The other way around makes sense, to save
> address space below 4G.

Ok, thanks for the patient repetition of your clear commit message :)

ACK

> 
> cheers,
>   Gerd
>