From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47909)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lersek@redhat.com>) id 1acqvW-0000ah-FY
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 03:54:07 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lersek@redhat.com>) id 1acqvS-00026y-Fa
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 03:54:06 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:49284)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lersek@redhat.com>) id 1acqvS-00026s-9S
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 03:54:02 -0500
References: <1456813104-25902-1-git-send-email-famz@redhat.com>
From: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <56DD41A6.2040106@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 09:53:58 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1456813104-25902-1-git-send-email-famz@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/7] memory: Clean up
 MemoryRegion.ram_addr and optimize address_space_translate
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Fam Zheng <famz@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, arei.gonglei@huawei.com, peterx@redhat.com, Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

(CC Janosch)

Hi,

On 03/01/16 07:18, Fam Zheng wrote:
> v2: In the optimization patch, factor out section_covers_addr() and use it.
>     [Paolo, Peter]
>     Check "ram_block == NULL" in patch 3. [Gonglei]
>     Add Gonglei's rev-by in patches 1, 2, 4 and 5.
> 
> The first four patches drop ram_addr from MemoryRegion on top of Gonglei's
> optimization.
> 
> The next patch simplifies qemu_ram_free a bit by passing the RAMBlock pointer.
> 
> The last patch speeds up address_space_translate with a cache pointer inside
> the AddressSpaceDispatch.
> 
> Fam Zheng (7):
>   exec: Return RAMBlock pointer from allocating functions
>   memory: Move assignment to ram_block to memory_region_init_*
>   memory: Implement memory_region_get_ram_addr with mr->ram_block
>   memory: Drop MemoryRegion.ram_addr
>   exec: Pass RAMBlock pointer to qemu_ram_free
>   exec: Factor out section_covers_addr
>   exec: Introduce AddressSpaceDispatch.mru_section
> 
>  cputlb.c                |   4 +-
>  exec.c                  | 106 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
>  hw/misc/ivshmem.c       |   9 ++--
>  include/exec/memory.h   |   9 +---
>  include/exec/ram_addr.h |  24 +++++------
>  kvm-all.c               |   3 +-
>  memory.c                |  56 ++++++++++++++-----------
>  7 files changed, 111 insertions(+), 100 deletions(-)
> 

Does this series preserve "scripts/dump-guest-memory.py" in working
shape? One of the patch titles above says "Drop MemoryRegion.ram_addr",
and I think that might break the memory_region_get_ram_ptr() method.

.. This might prove a false alarm, but I thought I'd ask.

Thanks
Laszlo