From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55084) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WIiIA-0000bs-Jc for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 12:29:15 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WIiI5-00048s-Pl for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 12:29:10 -0500 Message-ID: <530E2453.4050300@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 18:28:51 +0100 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1392652187-28381-1-git-send-email-imammedo@redhat.com> <1392652187-28381-4-git-send-email-imammedo@redhat.com> <20140226171535.GS24353@otherpad.lan.raisama.net> In-Reply-To: <20140226171535.GS24353@otherpad.lan.raisama.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/6] NUMA: check if the total numa memory size is equal to ram_size List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eduardo Habkost , Igor Mammedov Cc: peter.maydell@linaro.org, aliguori@amazon.com, andre.przywara@amd.com, armbru@redhat.com, mst@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, agraf@suse.de, qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, stefanha@redhat.com, lcapitulino@redhat.com, afaerber@suse.de, gaowanlong@cn.fujitsu.com, rth@twiddle.net Il 26/02/2014 18:15, Eduardo Habkost ha scritto: > On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 04:49:44PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote: >> From: Wanlong Gao >> >> If the total number of the assigned numa nodes memory is not >> equal to the assigned ram size, it will write the wrong data >> to ACPI table, then the guest will ignore the wrong ACPI table >> and recognize all memory to one node. It's buggy, we should >> check it to ensure that we write the right data to ACPI table. >> >> Signed-off-by: Wanlong Gao >> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini >> Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov >> --- >> numa.c | 10 ++++++++++ >> 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/numa.c b/numa.c >> index 7845036..d12a4f2 100644 >> --- a/numa.c >> +++ b/numa.c >> @@ -151,6 +151,16 @@ void set_numa_nodes(void) >> node_mem[i] = ram_size - usedmem; >> } >> >> + uint64_t numa_total = 0; > > I was going to point out that variable declarations in the middle of > blocks goes against coding style (at least I was told so), but my patch > to amend CODING_STYLE to document it was ignored for 2 weeks, already. > So, I am not sure we really have that rule. > > (Personally I am not against declaring variables in the middle of > blocks, I think it makes the code more readable, and it is perfectly > valid C99 code.) > > Reviewed-by: Eduardo Habkost I agree, but I fixed it already. Paolo