>>> On 7/8/2014 at 07:23 AM, <imamm...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2014 17:05:22 -0600
> Bruce Rogers <brog...@suse.com> wrote:
>
>> When using a memory size less than the default amount with older pc
>> machine types, a failure occurs because of the way maxram_size and
>> ram_size get initialized. Keep maxram_size and ram_size the same,
>> except when maxmem is specified on the command line.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Bruce Rogers <brog...@suse.com>
>> ---
>> vl.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/vl.c b/vl.c
>> index 6e084c2..0cb8c10 100644
>> --- a/vl.c
>> +++ b/vl.c
>> @@ -3345,7 +3345,6 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv, char **envp)
>> RAM_ADDR_FMT ")\n", slots, sz,
>> ram_size); exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>> }
>> - maxram_size = sz;
>> ram_slots = slots;
>> } else if ((!maxmem_str && slots_str) ||
>> (maxmem_str && !slots_str)) {
>> @@ -3353,6 +3352,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv, char **envp)
>> "'%s' option\n", slots_str ? "maxmem" :
>> "slots"); exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>> }
>> + maxram_size = sz;
> Relying here on sz being either ram_size or maxmem is a bit fragile.
> It'd be better to set maxram_size to ram_size before parsing maxmem.
>
> I'll post alternative patch.
>
>> break;
>> }
>> #ifdef CONFIG_TPM
Either way is fine with me.
Thanks
Bruce
