On 14 July 2017 at 18:01, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 10 July 2017 at 11:05, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On 07/07/2017 16:42, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> This patchset changes the memory region functions >>> - memory_region_init_ram() >>> - memory_region_init_rom() >>> - memory_region_init_rom_device() >>> to all automatically register the backing memory they allocate >>> for migration using vmstate_register_ram(). Renamed functions >>> - memory_region_init_ram_nomigrate() >>> - memory_region_init_rom_nomigrate() >>> - memory_region_init_rom_device_nomigrate() >>> are provided which only do the MR init, for the oddball >>> cases which want to manage migration of the backing memory >>> themselves (and to avoid behavioural changes for callers >>> which weren't managing correctly migration themselves...) >>> >>> The idea is based on discussion from a previous patchset: >>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-07/msg00764.html >>> >>> The series includes a largish coccinelle-scripted patch and a >>> few by-hand conversions which change callsites which previously >>> manually created the region and registered its backing ram in >>> two separate steps to use the new functions. >>> >>> This series does not include any patches to fix bugs like: >>> * caller forgot to call vmstate_register_ram() so region >>> is not actually migrated (eg hw/arm/highbank.c) >>> * caller used vmstate_register_ram_global() even though it is >>> a device, so you can't create 2 copies of the device (eg sm501) >>> because I wanted to stick to strictly no-behaviour-change >>> for this patch -- we can fix the bugs separately (fixes will >>> tend to imply migration compat breaks so can only be done >>> for some boards.) Most of the remaining callers of the >>> _nomigrate functions are buggy, I think (and a demonstration >>> that our current API does not score well on the "hard to >>> get wrong by accident" scale). >> >> Reviewed-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> > > Thanks. I'm going to apply this directly to master (so then > I can check that nothing has got applied to it since which > uses the old semantics for these functions; nothing in > fact has.)
...now applied (with the minor comment fixes requested). thanks -- PMM
