On Mon, Nov 04, 2024 at 09:17:30PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 04.11.24 21:14, Peter Xu wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 04, 2024 at 08:51:56PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > > > I did that previously, and Peter objected, saying the explicit > > > > anon-shared > > > > should not override the implicit shared=off. > > > > > > Yes, it's better if we can detect that somehow. There should be easy ways > > > to > > > make that work, so I wouldn't worry about that. > > > > I still think whenever the caller is capable of passing RAM_SHARED flag > > into ram_block_add(), we should always respect what's passed in from the > > caller, no matter it's a shared / private request. > > > > A major issue with that idea is when !RAM_SHARED, we don't easily know > > whether it's because the caller explicitly chose share=off, or if it's > > simply the type of ramblock that we don't care (e.g. ROMs). > > Agreed. But note that I think ram_block_add() is one level to deep to handle > that.
True.. qemu_ram_alloc_internal() is probably the best place to do the trick. Thanks, -- Peter Xu
