At 2023-07-28 18:45:20, "David Hildenbrand" <da...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> Quick untested attempt to move retry handling to the caller:
>>>
>>> diff --git a/softmmu/physmem.c b/softmmu/physmem.c
>>> index 3df73542e1..c826bb78fc 100644
>>> --- a/softmmu/physmem.c
>>> +++ b/softmmu/physmem.c
>>> @@ -1289,8 +1289,7 @@ static int64_t get_file_align(int fd)
>>> static int file_ram_open(const char *path,
>>> const char *region_name,
>>> bool readonly,
>>
>> For some reason this prereq part of patch has one additional space,
>> which causes my `patch` to reject the patch. I have to manually
>> fix it to test later.
>
>Yes, to be expected. Pasting a "git show" diff always messes up
>whitespace for me. It was only meant as a POC.
>
>>
>>> - bool *created,
>>> - Error **errp)
>>> + bool *created)
>>> {
>>> char *filename;
>>> char *sanitized_name;
>>> @@ -1334,10 +1333,7 @@ static int file_ram_open(const char *path,
>>> g_free(filename);
>>> }
>>> if (errno != EEXIST && errno != EINTR) {
>>> - error_setg_errno(errp, errno,
>>> - "can't open backing store %s for guest RAM",
>>> - path);
>>> - return -1;
>>> + return -errno;
>>> }
>>> /*
>>> * Try again on EINTR and EEXIST. The latter happens when
>>> @@ -1946,9 +1942,23 @@ RAMBlock *qemu_ram_alloc_from_file(ram_addr_t size,
>>> MemoryRegion *mr,
>>> bool created;
>>> RAMBlock *block;
>>>
>>> - fd = file_ram_open(mem_path, memory_region_name(mr), readonly,
>>> &created,
>>> - errp);
>>> + fd = file_ram_open(mem_path, memory_region_name(mr), readonly,
>>> &created);
>>> + if (fd == -EACCES && !(ram_flags & RAM_SHARED) && readonly) {
>>
>> "readonly" should be "!readonly" here? The readonly variable in this
>> function is
>> about whether the mapping is readonly. In our case the mapping is private
>> writable, so readonly will be false.
>
>Yes, indeed!
>
>>
>> After manually fix this up, this patch also works in my environment, both
>> functionality and the warning.
>>
>> Maybe you can directly format the patch and start a new thread there?
>
>
>Whatever you prefer! If I resend the patch, I would keep you the author
>and only add my Co-authored-by: Signed-off-by:.
>
>Just let me know.
Everything is good and clear now. I think it is better that you do the patch
here. Waiting for the final version of patch.
>
>--
>Cheers,
>
>David / dhildenb
