hi Michael,
Thanks for your explanation that make me realized I am wrong about
my patch:-[ ...So, forget it.
On 11/03/2015 08:40 PM, Michael Tokarev wrote:
03.11.2015 15:30, Cao jin wrote:
Signed-off-by: Cao jin <caoj.f...@cn.fujitsu.com>
---
vl.c | 9 ---------
1 file changed, 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/vl.c b/vl.c
index f5f7c3f..13f2c8b 100644
--- a/vl.c
+++ b/vl.c
@@ -2860,11 +2860,6 @@ static void set_memory_options(uint64_t *ram_slots,
ram_addr_t *maxram_size,
sz = 0;
mem_str = qemu_opt_get(opts, "size");
if (mem_str) {
- if (!*mem_str) {
- error_report("missing 'size' option value");
- exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
- }
I'm not sure this one is bad or good, it is indeed possible
to specify no value for size=, but if we're to check that,
we'd have to add such checks everywhere.
Yup..I missed to test "-m size=", just test several case with format "-m
###", and didn`t read get_opt_value throughly, or else will find it can
output a string like "\0" which I never encountered before;)
But the next one...
sz = qemu_opt_get_size(opts, "size", ram_size);
/* Fix up legacy suffix-less format */
@@ -2886,10 +2881,6 @@ static void set_memory_options(uint64_t *ram_slots,
ram_addr_t *maxram_size,
sz = QEMU_ALIGN_UP(sz, 8192);
ram_size = sz;
- if (ram_size != sz) {
- error_report("ram size too large");
- exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
- }
is definitely wrong.
sz is uint64_t, while ram_size is ram_addr_t which is
either uint64_t or uintptr_t. Until it is fixed to
always be 64bits, the above code makes (some) sense.
yes,I am careless... maybe
#ifdef CONFIG_XEN_BACKEND
if (ram_size != sz) {
error_report("ram size too large");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
#endif
is better, but no big deal;)
anyway, forget this patch:P
Thanks,
/mjt
--
Yours Sincerely,
Cao Jin
