Il 07/11/2013 23:23, Laszlo Ersek ha scritto: > On 11/07/13 22:24, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote: >> Why pci-hole and system.flash collide? IMHO we should not play with >> priorities here, better solve the collision. > > What about this "beautiful" series? It produces > > memory > 0000000000000000-000fffffffffffff (prio 0, RW): system > [...] > 0000000060000000-00000000ffdfffff (prio 0, RW): alias pci-hole @pci > 0000000060000000-00000000ffdfffff > [...] > 00000000ffe00000-00000000ffffffff (prio 0, R-): system.flash > > and I can run OVMF with it. It also stays within i386/pc.
This definitely works, and make sense. But I think for 1.7 we should just revert the commit. It can be done later in 1.8. And it should have a qtest testcase that shows the effect of the patch. Other patches can still be applied to 1.7, but the change definitely had much bigger ramifications than anticipated. The patches are [PATCH for-1.7 v2 5/8] pci: fix address space size for bridge [PATCH for-1.7 v2 7/8] pc: s/INT64_MAX/UINT64_MAX/ [PATCH for-1.7 v2 8/8] spapr_pci: s/INT64_MAX/UINT64_MAX/ There's also [PATCH 1/2] split definitions for exec.c and translate-all.c radix trees [PATCH 2/2] exec: make address spaces 64-bit wide which however has a 2% perf hit for TCG. In 1.8 we can apply it and recover the hit with other optimizations. Paolo
