From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67C9FC636D7 for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2023 02:39:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pUf1Q-0002Yx-HR; Tue, 21 Feb 2023 21:38:20 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pUf1N-0002KQ-94; Tue, 21 Feb 2023 21:38:17 -0500 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pUf1K-0002kp-2Z; Tue, 21 Feb 2023 21:38:16 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1677033494; x=1708569494; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=XKtWyhhMsv4S7QNMfNOSoCuHBO1JeUzgcxNUGHVZ7L8=; b=KjG5GleC/uFkb02VzDzYPXwRGIPI1jG5IA1Dcn42FWrskMLErTLZe5Af G5uN719ofR0Mi2Q7jMdF+M5Glf6Uk72NdPcwmW/Uk5UedHi09k2qlUBbi Kiz3L2mQpofzj4WDzaOUnbh+kHWq9Yndg442tVLXCTfT1MXl91X3fm0a5 zsESqtZPOM94sGS2I3q87xBVryDNVVdOCuTwvQII4K2wdTkOfHyvY22IF /7kDuEaUPfLARa8hWsR5pGufz43033F6GjnhNb0EQVuVvzBDz8FxzNjWG ZXr8k6ZFFQbJ3IO+hUsWBi42ki3Wf/29o6K+ccbpkqrTqIXBzDJTn/s5x w==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6500,9779,10628"; a="334178645" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.97,317,1669104000"; d="scan'208";a="334178645" Received: from fmsmga007.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.52]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Feb 2023 18:38:11 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6500,9779,10628"; a="673937160" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.97,317,1669104000"; d="scan'208";a="673937160" Received: from xiaoyaol-hp-g830.ccr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.254.208.234]) ([10.254.208.234]) by fmsmga007-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Feb 2023 18:38:07 -0800 Message-ID: <87e11e16-f9ad-bfb4-cc1c-d5288741ded3@intel.com> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2023 10:38:04 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/102.0 Thunderbird/102.8.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/9] hw/i386/pc: Initialize ram_memory variable directly Content-Language: en-US To: Bernhard Beschow , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: Paolo Bonzini , Sunil Muthuswamy , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Marcel Apfelbaum , "Dr . David Alan Gilbert" , qemu-trivial@nongnu.org, Richard Henderson , Juan Quintela , Eduardo Habkost , Thomas Huth , Igor Mammedov , BALATON Zoltan , Ani Sinha , Laurent Vivier , =?UTF-8?Q?Philippe_Mathieu-Daud=c3=a9?= References: <20230213162004.2797-1-shentey@gmail.com> <20230213162004.2797-7-shentey@gmail.com> From: Xiaoyao Li In-Reply-To: <20230213162004.2797-7-shentey@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received-SPF: pass client-ip=134.134.136.24; envelope-from=xiaoyao.li@intel.com; helo=mga09.intel.com X-Spam_score_int: -34 X-Spam_score: -3.5 X-Spam_bar: --- X-Spam_report: (-3.5 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=0.999, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.095, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org On 2/14/2023 12:20 AM, Bernhard Beschow wrote: > Going through pc_memory_init() seems quite complicated for a simple > assignment. > ... > diff --git a/hw/i386/pc_piix.c b/hw/i386/pc_piix.c > index 5bde4533cc..00ba725656 100644 > --- a/hw/i386/pc_piix.c > +++ b/hw/i386/pc_piix.c > @@ -143,6 +143,7 @@ static void pc_init1(MachineState *machine, > if (xen_enabled()) { > xen_hvm_init_pc(pcms, &ram_memory); > } else { > + ram_memory = machine->ram; > if (!pcms->max_ram_below_4g) { > pcms->max_ram_below_4g = 0xe0000000; /* default: 3.5G */ > } > @@ -205,8 +206,7 @@ static void pc_init1(MachineState *machine, > > /* allocate ram and load rom/bios */ > if (!xen_enabled()) { > - pc_memory_init(pcms, system_memory, > - rom_memory, &ram_memory, hole64_size); IMHO, it seems more proper to put + ram_memory = machine->ram; here rather than above. > + pc_memory_init(pcms, system_memory, rom_memory, hole64_size); > } else { > pc_system_flash_cleanup_unused(pcms); > if (machine->kernel_filename != NULL) {