[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH V2 for 2.1 0/3] bug fixs for memory backend
From: |
Hu Tao |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH V2 for 2.1 0/3] bug fixs for memory backend |
Date: |
Mon, 7 Jul 2014 16:17:30 +0800 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 06:35:42AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 06:24:59AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 10:58:05AM +0800, Hu Tao wrote:
> > > This series includes three patches to fix bugs of memory backend. Patch
> > > 1 prepares for next patches, patch 2 and patch 3 fix two bugs
> > > respectively, see each patch for the bugs and how to reproduce them.
> > >
> > > changes to v1:
> > >
> > > - split patch 1 in v1 into 2 patches
> > > - don't rely on ram_block_add to return -1
> > > - error message tweak in file_ram_alloc
> > > - add error messages reported by qemu to commit message of patch 3
> > >
> > > Hu Tao (3):
> > > memory: rename memory_region_init_ram() and
> > > memory_region_init_ram_ptr()
> > > memory: add errp parameter to memory_region_init_ram() and
> > > memory_region_init_ram_ptr()
> > > exec: improve error handling and reporting in file_ram_alloc() and
> > > gethugepagesize()
> >
> > I fixed up some minor issues and applied this, thanks.
>
> And reverted.
>
> Build fails, and a simple check after applying patch 1 gives me:
> git grep memory_region_init_ram |grep -v nofail|wc -l
> 132
Thanks for catching this! I should have built all targets.
>
> Apparently you fixed up about 10% of the files using this function.
> So forget about me merging patch 1.
>
> Add a new
> memory_region_init_ram_may_fail
> and
> memory_region_init_ram_ptr_may_fail
>
> and use it specifically for the new stuff.
Thanks for the change!
>
> Do the rename on top in two steps:
> memory_region_init_ram -> memory_region_init_ram_nofail
> memory_region_init_ram_may_fail -> memory_region_init_ram
>
> Paolo can then merge it when he prefers, though I'd say 2.2
> is more reasonable.
>
>
> > > backends/hostmem-ram.c | 2 +-
> > > exec.c | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
> > > hw/block/pflash_cfi01.c | 5 ++++-
> > > hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c | 5 ++++-
> > > hw/core/loader.c | 2 +-
> > > hw/display/vga.c | 2 +-
> > > hw/display/vmware_vga.c | 3 ++-
> > > hw/i386/kvm/pci-assign.c | 9 ++++----
> > > hw/i386/pc.c | 2 +-
> > > hw/i386/pc_sysfw.c | 4 ++--
> > > hw/misc/ivshmem.c | 9 ++++----
> > > hw/misc/vfio.c | 3 ++-
> > > hw/pci/pci.c | 2 +-
> > > include/exec/memory.h | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > > include/exec/ram_addr.h | 4 ++--
> > > memory.c | 57
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> > > numa.c | 4 ++--
> > > 17 files changed, 158 insertions(+), 49 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > --
> > > 1.9.3