From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60414) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ejtJN-0007UR-Se for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 08 Feb 2018 16:00:54 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ejtJJ-0004rD-30 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 08 Feb 2018 16:00:53 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:41826) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ejtJI-0004qt-So for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 08 Feb 2018 16:00:49 -0500 Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 19:00:35 -0200 From: Eduardo Habkost Message-ID: <20180208210035.GK13301@localhost.localdomain> References: <20180201205511.19198-1-marcel@redhat.com> <20180201205511.19198-2-marcel@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180201205511.19198-2-marcel@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH V9 1/4] mem: add share parameter to memory-backend-ram List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Marcel Apfelbaum Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, mst@redhat.com, cohuck@redhat.com, yuval.shaia@oracle.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, dotanb75@yahoo.com On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 10:55:08PM +0200, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote: > Currently only file backed memory backend can > be created with a "share" flag in order to allow > sharing guest RAM with other processes in the host. > > Add the "share" flag also to RAM Memory Backend > in order to allow remapping parts of the guest RAM > to different host virtual addresses. This is needed > by the RDMA devices in order to remap non-contiguous > QEMU virtual addresses to a contiguous virtual address range. > > Moved the "share" flag to the Host Memory base class, > modified phys_mem_alloc to include the new parameter > and a new interface memory_region_init_ram_shared_nomigrate. > > There are no functional changes if the new flag is not used. > > Signed-off-by: Marcel Apfelbaum Code looks correct, so: Reviewed-by: Eduardo Habkost But later can we please stop the explosion of memory_init_ram*() functions and replace them with a single function with a flags parameter? -- Eduardo