On 15/03/2016 17:41, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> writes: > >> On 07/03/2016 20:25, Markus Armbruster wrote: >>> gethugepagesize() works reliably only when its argument is on >>> hugetlbfs. When it's not, it returns the filesystem's "optimal >>> transfer block size", which may or may not be the actual page size >>> you'll get when you mmap(). >>> >>> If the value is too small or not a power of two, we fail >>> qemu_ram_mmap()'s assertions. These were added in commit 794e8f3 >>> (v2.5.0). The bug's impact before that is currently unknown. Seems >>> fairly unlikely at least when the normal page size is 4KiB. >>> >>> Else, if the value is too large, we align more strictly than >>> necessary. >>> >>> gethugepagesize() goes back to commit c902760 (v0.13). That commit >>> clearly intended gethugepagesize() to be used on hugetlbfs only. Not >>> only was it named accordingly, it also printed a warning when used on >>> anything else. However, the commit neglected to spell out the >>> restriction in user documentation of -mem-path. >>> >>> Commit bfc2a1a (v2.5.0) dropped the warning as bogus "because QEMU >>> functions perfectly well with the path on a regular tmpfs filesystem". >>> It sure does when you're sufficiently lucky. In my testing, I was >>> lucky, too. >>> >>> Fix by switching to qemu_fd_getpagesize(). Rename the variable >>> holding its result from hpagesize to page_size. >>> >>> Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> > [...] >> >> Queued, thanks. > > Not in master, yet. What repo+branch should I use as base for v3?
I'll send a pull request later today, keep an eye on it. Paolo
