On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 02:09:34AM +0000, Zhoujian (jay) wrote: > Hi Michael, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Michael S. Tsirkin [mailto:m...@redhat.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 9:34 AM > > To: Zhoujian (jay) <jianjay.z...@huawei.com> > > Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org; imamm...@redhat.com; Huangweidong (C) > > <weidong.hu...@huawei.com>; wangxin (U) <wangxinxin.w...@huawei.com>; > > Gonglei > > (Arei) <arei.gong...@huawei.com>; Liuzhe (Ahriy, Euler) > > <liuzh...@huawei.com> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v9] vhost: used_memslots refactoring > > > > On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 05:12:49PM +0800, Jay Zhou wrote: > > > Used_memslots is shared by vhost kernel and user, it is equal to > > > dev->mem->nregions, which is correct for vhost kernel, but not for > > > vhost user, the latter one uses memory regions that have file > > > descriptor. E.g. a VM has a vhost-user NIC and 8(vhost user memslot > > > upper limit) memory slots, it will be failed to hotplug a new DIMM > > > device since vhost_has_free_slot() finds no free slot left. It should > > > be successful if only part of memory slots have file descriptor, so > > > setting used memslots for vhost-user and vhost-kernel respectively. > > > > > > Below should go after --- > > Thanks for reminding. > > > > > > v7 ... v9: > > > - rebased on the master > > > v2 ... v6: > > > - delete the "used_memslots" global variable, and add it > > > for vhost-user and vhost-kernel separately > > > - refine the function, commit log > > > - used_memslots refactoring > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Jay Zhou <jianjay.z...@huawei.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Liuzhe <liuzh...@huawei.com> > > > > When built with clang this causes runtime warnings (during make check) about > > misaligned access to structures. > > > > The issue is that vhost_user_prepare_msg requests VhostUserMemory which > > compiler assumes but is then used with a pointer into a packed structure - > > where fields are not aligned. > > Sorry I missed the patch you have sent to fix the alignment, I have replied > to that thread.
I've dropped this from the pull for now. Sorry about that. Once next pull is merged, pls rebase and post a version fixing up the alignment issues. Thanks for your effort! -- MST
