On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 7:17 AM, Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 09:51:05AM -0700, Alistair Francis wrote:
> [...]
>> diff --git a/hw/i386/pc_q35.c b/hw/i386/pc_q35.c
>> index 169a214d50..435eb2c458 100644
>> --- a/hw/i386/pc_q35.c
>> +++ b/hw/i386/pc_q35.c
>> @@ -101,9 +101,11 @@ static void pc_q35_init(MachineState *machine)
>> lowmem = pcms->max_ram_below_4g;
>> if (machine->ram_size - lowmem > lowmem &&
>> lowmem & ((1ULL << 30) - 1)) {
>> - warn_report("Large machine and max_ram_below_4g(%"PRIu64
>> - ") not a multiple of 1G; possible bad performance.",
>> - pcms->max_ram_below_4g);
>> + warn_report("Large machine as the ram size (0x%" PRIx64 ") is
>> more"
>> + " then twice the size of the internal limit"
>> + " (0x%" PRIx64 ") and max-ram-below-4g (%"PRIu64")"
>> + " note a multiple of 1G; possible bad performance.",
>> + machine->ram_size, lowmem, pcms->max_ram_below_4g);
>
> Here lowmem and max_ram_below_4g have exactly the same value,
> don't they? There's no internal limit involved in this logic,
> only max_ram_below_4g and ram_size.
Good point, I'll change it to this:
warn_report("There is possibly poor performance as the ram size "
" (0x%" PRIx64 ") is more then twice the size of"
" max-ram-below-4g (%"PRIu64") and"
" max-ram-below-4g is not a multiple of 1G.",
machine->ram_size, pcms->max_ram_below_4g);
Thanks,
Alistair
>
> --
> Eduardo
