Re: [PATCH 03/04] qemu-kvm: Remove the dependency for phys_ram_base for ipf.c

Jes Sorensen wrote: Zhang, Xiantao wrote: Jes Sorensen wrote: I still can't see the difference with the patch in Avi's tree except nvram stuff. And I believe the global variable you mentioned should be only used for nvram. So I propose an incremental patch for that. :) Hi, Here is an

Re: [PATCH 03/04] qemu-kvm: Remove the dependency for phys_ram_base for ipf.c

Jes Sorensen wrote: Zhang, Xiantao wrote: Jes Sorensen wrote: I still can't see the difference with the patch in Avi's tree except nvram stuff. And I believe the global variable you mentioned should be only used for nvram. So I propose an incremental patch for that. :) Hi, Here is an

RE: [PATCH 03/04] qemu-kvm: Remove the dependency for phys_ram_base for ipf.c

Avi Kivity wrote: Jes Sorensen wrote: Zhang, Xiantao wrote: Jes Sorensen wrote: I still can't see the difference with the patch in Avi's tree except nvram stuff. And I believe the global variable you mentioned should be only used for nvram. So I propose an incremental patch for that. :)

Re: [PATCH 03/04] qemu-kvm: Remove the dependency for phys_ram_base for ipf.c

Zhang, Xiantao wrote: Avi Kivity wrote: Looks good to me. Xiantao? Hi, Jes Have you tested nvram support with this patch? I Xiantao No, But it is behaving exactly like the old code, so it is no more broken than the old code was. Lets apply this and then look at the nvram issues

RE: [PATCH 03/04] qemu-kvm: Remove the dependency for phys_ram_base for ipf.c

Jes Sorensen wrote: Zhang, Xiantao wrote: Avi Kivity wrote: Looks good to me. Xiantao? Hi, Jes Have you tested nvram support with this patch? I Xiantao No, But it is behaving exactly like the old code, so it is no more broken than the old code was. Lets apply this and then

Re: [PATCH 03/04] qemu-kvm: Remove the dependency for phys_ram_base for ipf.c

Zhang, Xiantao wrote: Jes Sorensen wrote: I still can't see the difference with the patch in Avi's tree except nvram stuff. And I believe the global variable you mentioned should be only used for nvram. So I propose an incremental patch for that. :) Hi, Here is an incremental version of

Re: [PATCH 03/04] qemu-kvm: Remove the dependency for phys_ram_base for ipf.c

Zhang, Xiantao wrote: Jes Sorensen wrote: The main difference is that my patch cleans up the interfaces and calls to the various functions, and removes a bunch of global variables as well. I still can't see the difference with the patch in Avi's tree except nvram stuff. And I believe the

Re: [PATCH 03/04] qemu-kvm: Remove the dependency for phys_ram_base for ipf.c

Jes Sorensen wrote: Zhang, Xiantao wrote: Jes Sorensen wrote: The main difference is that my patch cleans up the interfaces and calls to the various functions, and removes a bunch of global variables as well. I still can't see the difference with the patch in Avi's tree except nvram stuff.

Re: [PATCH 03/04] qemu-kvm: Remove the dependency for phys_ram_base for ipf.c

Avi Kivity wrote: Jes Sorensen wrote: I pushed my queue into a branch (named 'queue'). Will merge once I resolve the regressions here. Hi Avi, I don't see that branch - it's in the qemu-kvm repo? Cheers, Jes [...@leavenworth qemu-kvm]$ git branch -a * master origin/HEAD

Re: [PATCH 03/04] qemu-kvm: Remove the dependency for phys_ram_base for ipf.c

Zhang, Xiantao wrote: Avi Kivity wrote: I haven't pushed this out yet, so I can apply a replacement patch. We don't need flush_icache_range here, because I believe it is called in cpu_physical_memory_write. Xiantao Hi Xiantao, Good point, I hadn't spotted that, and worse I mangled

RE: [PATCH 03/04] qemu-kvm: Remove the dependency for phys_ram_base for ipf.c

Jes Sorensen wrote: Zhang, Xiantao wrote: Avi Kivity wrote: I haven't pushed this out yet, so I can apply a replacement patch. We don't need flush_icache_range here, because I believe it is called in cpu_physical_memory_write. Xiantao Hi Xiantao, Good point, I hadn't spotted that, and

Re: [PATCH 03/04] qemu-kvm: Remove the dependency for phys_ram_base for ipf.c

Zhang, Xiantao wrote: Jes Sorensen wrote: What do you think of this one? Hi, Jes Except nvram stuff, I don't see the difference with my patch. Could you provide an incremental patch to fix nvram stuff ? :) Xiantao Hi Xiantao, The main difference is that my patch cleans up the

RE: [PATCH 03/04] qemu-kvm: Remove the dependency for phys_ram_base for ipf.c

Jes Sorensen wrote: Zhang, Xiantao wrote: Jes Sorensen wrote: What do you think of this one? Hi, Jes Except nvram stuff, I don't see the difference with my patch. Could you provide an incremental patch to fix nvram stuff ? :) Xiantao Hi Xiantao, The main difference is that my

Re: [PATCH 03/04] qemu-kvm: Remove the dependency for phys_ram_base for ipf.c

Zhang, Xiantao wrote: Jes Sorensen wrote: The main difference is that my patch cleans up the interfaces and calls to the various functions, and removes a bunch of global variables as well. I still can't see the difference with the patch in Avi's tree except nvram stuff. And I believe the

Re: [PATCH 03/04] qemu-kvm: Remove the dependency for phys_ram_base for ipf.c

Zhang, Xiantao wrote: qemu_get_ram_ptr() returns a pointer. Don't cast it to a ram_addr_t, leave it a pointer. But why not use cpu_physical_memory_write() (or cpu_physical_memory_write_rom())? It's much simpler and cleaner. Good suggestion! I just followed the original logic. Updated

RE: [PATCH 03/04] qemu-kvm: Remove the dependency for phys_ram_base for ipf.c

Avi Kivity wrote: Zhang, Xiantao wrote: From aaf97331da3d6cd34522441218c8c9ab3c1067f6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Xiantao Zhang xiantao.zh...@intel.com Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:55:47 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] qemu-kvm: Remove the dependency for phys_ram_base for ipf.c Upstream has

Re: [PATCH 03/04] qemu-kvm: Remove the dependency for phys_ram_base for ipf.c

Jes Sorensen wrote: Avi == Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com writes: Avi Zhang, Xiantao wrote: qemu_get_ram_ptr() returns a pointer. Don't cast it to a ram_addr_t, leave it a pointer. But why not use cpu_physical_memory_write() (or cpu_physical_memory_write_rom())? It's much

Re: [PATCH 03/04] qemu-kvm: Remove the dependency for phys_ram_base for ipf.c

Zhang, Xiantao wrote: From aaf97331da3d6cd34522441218c8c9ab3c1067f6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Xiantao Zhang xiantao.zh...@intel.com Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:55:47 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] qemu-kvm: Remove the dependency for phys_ram_base for ipf.c Upstream has dropped phys_ram_base, so

Re: [PATCH 03/04] qemu-kvm: Remove the dependency for phys_ram_base for ipf.c

Avi == Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com writes: Avi Zhang, Xiantao wrote: qemu_get_ram_ptr() returns a pointer. Don't cast it to a ram_addr_t, leave it a pointer. But why not use cpu_physical_memory_write() (or cpu_physical_memory_write_rom())? It's much simpler and cleaner. Good

Re: [PATCH 03/04] qemu-kvm: Remove the dependency for phys_ram_base for ipf.c

Avi Kivity wrote: Jes Sorensen wrote: Hi, I am not crazy about this patch. You need to use cpy_physical_memory_rw() in the hob and nvram code too, not just in the ipf.c code. What about the flush_icache_range() call you removed - is it safe to just discard that? I was in the process of

RE: [PATCH 03/04] qemu-kvm: Remove the dependency for phys_ram_base for ipf.c

Jes Sorensen wrote: Avi == Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com writes: Avi Zhang, Xiantao wrote: qemu_get_ram_ptr() returns a pointer. Don't cast it to a ram_addr_t, leave it a pointer. But why not use cpu_physical_memory_write() (or cpu_physical_memory_write_rom())? It's much simpler and

RE: [PATCH 03/04] qemu-kvm: Remove the dependency for phys_ram_base for ipf.c

Avi Kivity wrote: Jes Sorensen wrote: Avi == Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com writes: Avi Zhang, Xiantao wrote: qemu_get_ram_ptr() returns a pointer. Don't cast it to a ram_addr_t, leave it a pointer. But why not use cpu_physical_memory_write() (or cpu_physical_memory_write_rom())?