From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33229) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yx9nA-0005mF-El for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 26 May 2015 04:00:58 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yx9n9-0001c9-De for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 26 May 2015 04:00:52 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 10:00:31 +0200 From: Thomas Huth Message-ID: <20150526100031.4aec99bf@thh440s> In-Reply-To: <1432606979-28556-3-git-send-email-david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> References: <1432606979-28556-1-git-send-email-david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> <1432606979-28556-3-git-send-email-david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCHv2 2/4] spapr: Remove obsolete ram_limit field from sPAPRMachineState List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: David Gibson Cc: lvivier@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com, agraf@suse.de, qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, bharata@linux.vnet.ibm.com, afaerber@suse.de On Tue, 26 May 2015 12:22:57 +1000 David Gibson wrote: > The ram_limit field was imported from sPAPREnvironment where it predates > the machine's ram size being available generically from machine->ram_size. > > Worse, the existing code was inconsistent about where it got the ram size > from. Sometimes it used spapr->ram_limit, sometimes the global 'ram_size' > and sometimes a local 'ram_size' masking the global. > > This cleans up the code to consistently use machine->ram_size, eliminating > spapr->ram_limit in the process. > > Signed-off-by: David Gibson > --- > hw/ppc/spapr.c | 22 ++++++++++++---------- > hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c | 3 ++- > include/hw/ppc/spapr.h | 1 - > 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr.c b/hw/ppc/spapr.c > index 0016f25..31b29d6 100644 > --- a/hw/ppc/spapr.c > +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr.c [...] > @@ -649,6 +652,7 @@ static void spapr_populate_memory_node(void *fdt, int nodeid, hwaddr start, > > static int spapr_populate_memory(sPAPRMachineState *spapr, void *fdt) > { > + MachineState *machine = &spapr->parent_obj; Here you use &spapr->parent_obj ... below you use MACHINE(spapr) ... looks somewhat inconsequent ==> maybe also use MACHINE(spapr) here? ... > diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c b/hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c > index 1a20884..652ddf6 100644 > --- a/hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c > +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c > @@ -87,6 +87,7 @@ static inline bool valid_pte_index(CPUPPCState *env, target_ulong pte_index) > static target_ulong h_enter(PowerPCCPU *cpu, sPAPRMachineState *spapr, > target_ulong opcode, target_ulong *args) > { > + MachineState *machine = MACHINE(spapr); > CPUPPCState *env = &cpu->env; > target_ulong flags = args[0]; > target_ulong pte_index = args[1]; Apart from the above nit, patch looks fine to me, so: Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth Another question out of curiosity: Do you know if the global "ram_size" variable is scheduled to be removed soon in the future? Thomas