On 07/07/2015 11:02 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 07/07/2015 11:00, Eric Auger wrote: >> Hi Paolo, Peter, >> On 06/22/2015 11:58 AM, Eric Auger wrote: >>> On 06/22/2015 11:53 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 22/06/2015 11:49, Eric Auger wrote: >>>>>>> It seems safe because rom_load_all really doesn't load anything, it only >>>>>>> does an overlap check. Is this right? >>>>> it does the check + isrom field setting >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is the bug that some overlapping ROMs are not detected? The commit >>>>>>> message is not clear. >>>>> The regression is that the both overlap check and isrom setting are not >>>>> done since ROM are inserted in the roms list afterwards, at machine init >>>>> done time. The bug was not really observed yet I think. >>>> >>>> isrom is just an optimization though, right? What is it useful for? >>> My understanding is it serves 2 purposes: >>> >>> - report info in the monitor (hmp_info_roms) >>> - decide whether the rom->data can be freed on ROM reset notifier >>> (rom_reset). >>> >>> Hope I didn't miss anything else. >>> >>> Eric >> >> What do we decide then about this regression on arm. Do we fix it in 2.4 >> or later? > > Yes, it should be fixed in 2.4. Do you want me to resend it with a new commit message or is the context clearer now?
Thanks Eric > > Paolo >