On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 05:30:23PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 05:43:15PM +0800, Hu Tao wrote: > > From: Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]> > > > > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Hu Tao <[email protected]> > > --- > > hw/i386/pc.c | 4 +--- > > include/hw/boards.h | 6 +++++- > > include/sysemu/sysemu.h | 1 + > > numa.c | 9 +++++++++ > > 4 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/hw/i386/pc.c b/hw/i386/pc.c > > index 3673da8..3778d41 100644 > > --- a/hw/i386/pc.c > > +++ b/hw/i386/pc.c > > @@ -1210,9 +1210,7 @@ FWCfgState *pc_memory_init(QEMUMachineInitArgs *args, > > * with older qemus that used qemu_ram_alloc(). > > */ > > ram = g_malloc(sizeof(*ram)); > > - memory_region_init_ram(ram, NULL, "pc.ram", > > - below_4g_mem_size + above_4g_mem_size); > > - vmstate_register_ram_global(ram); > > + memory_region_allocate_system_memory(ram, NULL, "pc.ram", > > args->ram_size); > > I had to check if below_4g_mem_size+above_4g_mem_size can be always > safely replaced by args->ram_size. Personally, wouldn't change the > ram_size expression in the same patch that adds the new function, but: > > Reviewed-by: Eduardo Habkost <[email protected]> > > > Maybe we could at least add: > assert(below_4g_mem_size + above_4g_mem_size == args->ram_size); > to the code, later?
Thanks, Done. Hu
