From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52230) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1X1VSb-0002El-P9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 02:53:10 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1X1VSX-0006ld-4G for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 02:53:05 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:36838) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1X1VSW-0006k6-Qn for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 02:53:01 -0400 Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 09:53:20 +0300 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20140630065320.GC14491@redhat.com> References: <1403687054-13682-1-git-send-email-hutao@cn.fujitsu.com> <20140629152022.GC29448@redhat.com> <20140630053342.GA8535@G08FNSTD100614.fnst.cn.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140630053342.GA8535@G08FNSTD100614.fnst.cn.fujitsu.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] numa: check for busy memory backend List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Hu Tao Cc: Igor Mammedov , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Yasunori Goto On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 01:33:42PM +0800, Hu Tao wrote: > On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 06:20:22PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 05:04:14PM +0800, Hu Tao wrote: > > > ..to prevent one memory backend from being used by more than one numa > > > node. > > > > Thanks, but please always make the msg content self-contained > > so it can be understood without the subject. > > E.g. here, just drop "..to". > > > > Are you sure we want this? Is there a chance sharing a backend > > can be useful? > > This patch is actually a bug fix. It is? What is the bug and how to reproduce it? I am not sure we should write a ton of code to validate qemu configuration, as long as qemu does not assert. > Even if we will want backend sharing, we > can do it after. By reverting this patch? So why merge it? > > > > Igor, what's your take? > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Hu Tao > > > --- > > > numa.c | 7 +++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/numa.c b/numa.c > > > index e471afe..6c1c554 100644 > > > --- a/numa.c > > > +++ b/numa.c > > > @@ -279,6 +279,13 @@ void memory_region_allocate_system_memory(MemoryRegion *mr, Object *owner, > > > exit(1); > > > } > > > > > > + if (memory_region_is_mapped(seg)) { > > > + char *path = object_get_canonical_path_component(OBJECT(backend)); > > > + error_report("memory backend %s is busy", path); > > > + g_free(path); > > > + exit(1); > > > + } > > > + > > > memory_region_add_subregion(mr, addr, seg); > > > vmstate_register_ram_global(seg); > > > addr += size; > > > -- > > > 1.9.3