> "As I mentioned earlier": where?
> Otherwise this description will be of
> little relevance in 5 years from now in our history.
I explained the motivation on the first revision of the patch
On Wed, May 7, 2025, 14:58 Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> Hi Elisha,
>
> On 6/5/25 18:44, Elisha Holla
Hi Elisha,
On 6/5/25 18:44, Elisha Hollander wrote:
> As I mentioned earlier, let's say you don't initialize the vertical
"As I mentioned earlier": where? Otherwise this description will be of
little relevance in 5 years from now in our history.
display end registers, and set the minimum sca
On Wed, May 07, 2025 at 01:25:34AM +0300, Elisha Hollander wrote:
> Maybe an assert is really more appropriate, but technically doing so on
> actual hardware should run flawlessly so I think the emu should work too...
> Maybe I'm wrong though
I'm still not clear which specific hardware device you'
Maybe an assert is really more appropriate, but technically doing so on
actual hardware should run flawlessly so I think the emu should work too...
Maybe I'm wrong though
On Tue, May 6, 2025, 19:48 Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Tue, May 06, 2025 at 07:41:32PM +0300, Elisha Hollander wrote:
> >
On Tue, May 06, 2025 at 07:41:32PM +0300, Elisha Hollander wrote:
> Gave an example for a case where QEMU would try to allocate 0 bytes thus
> fail here in the original version of the patch.
>
> > As I mentioned earlier, let's say you don't initialize the vertical
> display end registers, and set
> As I mentioned earlier, let's say you don't initialize the vertical
display end registers, and set the minimum scanline register, the emulation
will then have to allocate some display buffer, but because the vertical
display end is initilized as 0 the buffer will be empty and the program
break.
Gave an example for a case where QEMU would try to allocate 0 bytes thus
fail here in the original version of the patch.
> As I mentioned earlier, let's say you don't initialize the vertical
display end registers, and set the minimum scanline register, the emulation
will then have to allocate some
On Tue, May 06, 2025 at 07:17:25PM +0300, Elisha Hollander wrote:
> Sorry for former patch something is messed up with my email.
The commit message needs to explain what problem is being solved by
making this change as allowing 0 bytes looks dubious on the surface.
>
> Signed-off-by: donno2048
Sorry for former patch something is messed up with my email.
Signed-off-by: donno2048
---
util/memfd.c | 10 ++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/util/memfd.c b/util/memfd.c
index 8a2e906..e96e5af 100644
--- a/util/memfd.c
+++ b/util/memfd.c
@@ -108,7 +108,7 @
Signed-off-by: donno2048
---
util/memfd.c | 10 ++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/util/memfd.c b/util/memfd.c
index 8a2e906..e96e5af 100644
--- a/util/memfd.c
+++ b/util/memfd.c @@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ err:
void *qemu_memfd_alloc(const char *name, size_t size,
10 matches
Mail list logo
