On 2018-11-29 at 04:11:11 -0500, Pankaj Gupta wrote:
>
> >
> > As more flag parameters besides the existing 'share' are going to be
> > added to qemu_ram_alloc_from_{file,fd}(), let's swith 'share' to a
> > 'flags' parameters in advance, so as to ease the further additions.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Haozhong Zhang <haozhong.zhang@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Zhang Yi <yi.z.zhang@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> > exec.c | 6 ++++--
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/exec.c b/exec.c
> > index 273f668..e92a7da 100644
> > --- a/exec.c
> > +++ b/exec.c
> > @@ -1810,6 +1810,7 @@ static void *file_ram_alloc(RAMBlock *block,
> > ram_addr_t memory,
> > int fd,
> > bool truncate,
> > + uint32_t flags,
> > Error **errp)
> > {
> > void *area;
> > @@ -1859,7 +1860,7 @@ static void *file_ram_alloc(RAMBlock *block,
> > perror("ftruncate");
> > }
> >
> > - area = qemu_ram_mmap(fd, memory, block->mr->align, block->flags);
> > + area = qemu_ram_mmap(fd, memory, block->mr->align, flags);
>
> I think this change can be squashed with patch2 unless I am not missing
> anything here.
Yes, right, nothing just split the diffrent function in diffrent patch.
It's OK to squashed these 2 together.
Thanks for the review.
Yi.
>
> > if (area == MAP_FAILED) {
> > error_setg_errno(errp, errno,
> > "unable to map backing store for guest RAM");
> > @@ -2278,7 +2279,8 @@ RAMBlock *qemu_ram_alloc_from_fd(ram_addr_t size,
> > MemoryRegion *mr,
> > new_block->used_length = size;
> > new_block->max_length = size;
> > new_block->flags = ram_flags;
> > - new_block->host = file_ram_alloc(new_block, size, fd, !file_size, errp);
> > + new_block->host = file_ram_alloc(new_block, size, fd, !file_size,
> > + ram_flags, errp);
> > if (!new_block->host) {
> > g_free(new_block);
> > return NULL;
> > --
> > 2.7.4
> >
> >
> >