(CC Janosch) Hi,
On 03/01/16 07:18, Fam Zheng wrote: > v2: In the optimization patch, factor out section_covers_addr() and use it. > [Paolo, Peter] > Check "ram_block == NULL" in patch 3. [Gonglei] > Add Gonglei's rev-by in patches 1, 2, 4 and 5. > > The first four patches drop ram_addr from MemoryRegion on top of Gonglei's > optimization. > > The next patch simplifies qemu_ram_free a bit by passing the RAMBlock pointer. > > The last patch speeds up address_space_translate with a cache pointer inside > the AddressSpaceDispatch. > > Fam Zheng (7): > exec: Return RAMBlock pointer from allocating functions > memory: Move assignment to ram_block to memory_region_init_* > memory: Implement memory_region_get_ram_addr with mr->ram_block > memory: Drop MemoryRegion.ram_addr > exec: Pass RAMBlock pointer to qemu_ram_free > exec: Factor out section_covers_addr > exec: Introduce AddressSpaceDispatch.mru_section > > cputlb.c | 4 +- > exec.c | 106 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------- > hw/misc/ivshmem.c | 9 ++-- > include/exec/memory.h | 9 +--- > include/exec/ram_addr.h | 24 +++++------ > kvm-all.c | 3 +- > memory.c | 56 ++++++++++++++----------- > 7 files changed, 111 insertions(+), 100 deletions(-) > Does this series preserve "scripts/dump-guest-memory.py" in working shape? One of the patch titles above says "Drop MemoryRegion.ram_addr", and I think that might break the memory_region_get_ram_ptr() method. .. This might prove a false alarm, but I thought I'd ask. Thanks Laszlo
