From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46622) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gU5HF-0000MN-10 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2018 02:37:57 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gU58V-0006Cm-EN for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2018 02:28:55 -0500 Received: from mga04.intel.com ([192.55.52.120]:48191) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gU58T-00068A-E8 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2018 02:28:51 -0500 Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 15:28:28 +0800 From: Yi Zhang Message-ID: <20181204072827.GA74594@tiger-server> References: <9619c036a6dc6cb4966f46d2405084f11666e14d.1542699775.git.yi.z.zhang@linux.intel.com> <982407816.37384656.1543482671950.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <982407816.37384656.1543482671950.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH V5_resend 3/7] exec: switch qemu_ram_alloc_from_{file, fd} to the 'flags' parameter List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Pankaj Gupta Cc: xiaoguangrong eric , dan j williams , stefanha@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, yu c zhang , imammedo@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, ehabkost@redhat.com, mst@redhat.com On 2018-11-29 at 04:11:11 -0500, Pankaj Gupta wrote: > > > > > As more flag parameters besides the existing 'share' are going to be > > added to qemu_ram_alloc_from_{file,fd}(), let's swith 'share' to a > > 'flags' parameters in advance, so as to ease the further additions. > > > > Signed-off-by: Haozhong Zhang > > Signed-off-by: Zhang Yi > > --- > > exec.c | 6 ++++-- > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/exec.c b/exec.c > > index 273f668..e92a7da 100644 > > --- a/exec.c > > +++ b/exec.c > > @@ -1810,6 +1810,7 @@ static void *file_ram_alloc(RAMBlock *block, > > ram_addr_t memory, > > int fd, > > bool truncate, > > + uint32_t flags, > > Error **errp) > > { > > void *area; > > @@ -1859,7 +1860,7 @@ static void *file_ram_alloc(RAMBlock *block, > > perror("ftruncate"); > > } > > > > - area = qemu_ram_mmap(fd, memory, block->mr->align, block->flags); > > + area = qemu_ram_mmap(fd, memory, block->mr->align, flags); > > I think this change can be squashed with patch2 unless I am not missing > anything here. Yes, right, nothing just split the diffrent function in diffrent patch. It's OK to squashed these 2 together. Thanks for the review. Yi. > > > if (area == MAP_FAILED) { > > error_setg_errno(errp, errno, > > "unable to map backing store for guest RAM"); > > @@ -2278,7 +2279,8 @@ RAMBlock *qemu_ram_alloc_from_fd(ram_addr_t size, > > MemoryRegion *mr, > > new_block->used_length = size; > > new_block->max_length = size; > > new_block->flags = ram_flags; > > - new_block->host = file_ram_alloc(new_block, size, fd, !file_size, errp); > > + new_block->host = file_ram_alloc(new_block, size, fd, !file_size, > > + ram_flags, errp); > > if (!new_block->host) { > > g_free(new_block); > > return NULL; > > -- > > 2.7.4 > > > > > >