From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57195) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a8qOP-000076-DJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 09:15:54 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a8qOL-0002bG-AM for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 09:15:53 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:56013) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a8qOL-0002bA-2R for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 09:15:49 -0500 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 965E98E236 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 14:15:48 +0000 (UTC) References: <1449859353-1574-1-git-send-email-ehabkost@redhat.com> <1449859353-1574-11-git-send-email-ehabkost@redhat.com> From: Marcel Apfelbaum Message-ID: <56702091.60007@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:15:45 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1449859353-1574-11-git-send-email-ehabkost@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 10/14] pc: Remove RAM size fields from PcGuestInfo List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eduardo Habkost , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: Igor Mammedov , Marcel Apfelbaum , "Michael S. Tsirkin" On 12/11/2015 08:42 PM, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > The ACPI code can use the PCMachineState fields directly. > > Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost > --- > hw/i386/acpi-build.c | 10 +++++----- > hw/i386/pc.c | 2 -- > include/hw/i386/pc.h | 1 - > 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c > index 46b83ad..9598eac 100644 > --- a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c > +++ b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c > @@ -1509,17 +1509,17 @@ build_srat(GArray *table_data, GArray *linker) > next_base = mem_base + mem_len; > > /* Cut out the ACPI_PCI hole */ > - if (mem_base <= guest_info->ram_size_below_4g && > - next_base > guest_info->ram_size_below_4g) { > - mem_len -= next_base - guest_info->ram_size_below_4g; > + if (mem_base <= pcms->below_4g_mem_size && > + next_base > pcms->below_4g_mem_size) { > + mem_len -= next_base - pcms->below_4g_mem_size; > if (mem_len > 0) { > numamem = acpi_data_push(table_data, sizeof *numamem); > acpi_build_srat_memory(numamem, mem_base, mem_len, i - 1, > MEM_AFFINITY_ENABLED); > } > mem_base = 1ULL << 32; > - mem_len = next_base - guest_info->ram_size_below_4g; > - next_base += (1ULL << 32) - guest_info->ram_size_below_4g; > + mem_len = next_base - pcms->below_4g_mem_size; > + next_base += (1ULL << 32) - pcms->below_4g_mem_size; > } > numamem = acpi_data_push(table_data, sizeof *numamem); > acpi_build_srat_memory(numamem, mem_base, mem_len, i - 1, > diff --git a/hw/i386/pc.c b/hw/i386/pc.c > index f8d4531..998fe4e 100644 > --- a/hw/i386/pc.c > +++ b/hw/i386/pc.c > @@ -1187,8 +1187,6 @@ PcGuestInfo *pc_guest_info_init(PCMachineState *pcms) > PcGuestInfo *guest_info = &pcms->acpi_guest_info; > int i, j; > > - guest_info->ram_size_below_4g = pcms->below_4g_mem_size; > - guest_info->ram_size = pcms->below_4g_mem_size + pcms->above_4g_mem_size; > guest_info->apic_id_limit = pc_apic_id_limit(max_cpus); > guest_info->apic_xrupt_override = kvm_allows_irq0_override(); > guest_info->numa_nodes = nb_numa_nodes; > diff --git a/include/hw/i386/pc.h b/include/hw/i386/pc.h > index d24682f..30c7a5b 100644 > --- a/include/hw/i386/pc.h > +++ b/include/hw/i386/pc.h > @@ -23,7 +23,6 @@ > /* Machine info for ACPI build: */ > struct PcGuestInfo { > bool isapc_ram_fw; > - hwaddr ram_size, ram_size_below_4g; I understand the ram_size_below_4g change. So nobody was using PcGuestInfo->ram_size? Since this is probably true: Reviewed-by: Marcel Apfelbaum > unsigned apic_id_limit; > bool apic_xrupt_override; > uint64_t numa_nodes; >