On Mon, 03/07 09:53, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > (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.
Indeed, the 'memory_region["ram_addr"]' expression is broken. I'll send a separate patch. Fam
