On 07/07/2015 11:07, Eric Auger wrote: > On 07/07/2015 11:02 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> >> >> On 07/07/2015 11:00, Eric Auger wrote: >>> Hi Paolo, Peter, >>> On 06/22/2015 11:58 AM, Eric Auger wrote: >>>> On 06/22/2015 11:53 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 22/06/2015 11:49, Eric Auger wrote: >>>>>>>> It seems safe because rom_load_all really doesn't load anything, it >>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>> does an overlap check. Is this right? >>>>>> it does the check + isrom field setting >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is the bug that some overlapping ROMs are not detected? The commit >>>>>>>> message is not clear. >>>>>> The regression is that the both overlap check and isrom setting are not >>>>>> done since ROM are inserted in the roms list afterwards, at machine init >>>>>> done time. The bug was not really observed yet I think. >>>>> >>>>> isrom is just an optimization though, right? What is it useful for? >>>> My understanding is it serves 2 purposes: >>>> >>>> - report info in the monitor (hmp_info_roms) >>>> - decide whether the rom->data can be freed on ROM reset notifier >>>> (rom_reset). >>>> >>>> Hope I didn't miss anything else. >>>> >>>> Eric >>> >>> What do we decide then about this regression on arm. Do we fix it in 2.4 >>> or later? >> >> Yes, it should be fixed in 2.4. > Do you want me to resend it with a new commit message or is the context > clearer now?
It's okay, thanks! Paolo
