On Wed, 4 Mar 2026, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
On 3/3/26 18:20, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
On 2/3/26 07:21, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
On 2026/02/27 7:22, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
physmem.c defines 2 stubs which are related to ram-block:
qemu_ram_block_from_host() and qemu_ram_get_fd().
Move them with the other ram-block stubs.
Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <[email protected]>
---
stubs/physmem.c | 13 -------------
stubs/ram-block.c | 11 +++++++++++
Maybe should be the other way around moving what's in subs/ram- block.c
to stubs/physmem.c considering the the functions these stub out are in
system/physmem.c and there's no system/ram-block.c.
Fine, I'll drop this patch if you think it is not worthwhile.
I did not say that, only that the functions are in system/physmem.c so why
not put the stubs in stubs/physmem.c to match? Since there's no
system/ram-block.c I think it makes more sense to merge these into
stubs/physmem.c instead.
Unfortunately I won't have time to address this change before
soft-freeze, do you mind posting the patch?
I don't think this is a big issue to put much effort in so as I said
dropping the patch and not changing it is probably the simplest.
Thanks for your review and help here,
Phil.
But just leaving it as it is is also OK.
Regards,
BALATON Zoltan
