On 29.05.2018 15:27, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2018 10:15:14 +0200
> David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> The start of the address space does not have to be aligned for the
>> search. Handle this case explicitly when starting the search for a new
>> address.
> That's true,
> but commit message doesn't explain why address_space_start
> should be allowed to be non aligned.
>
> At least with this assert we would notice early that
> board allocating misaligned address space.
> I'd keep the assert unless there is a good reason to drop it.
That reason might be that I can easily crash QEMU
./x86_64-softmmu/qemu-system-x86_64 -m 256M,maxmem=20G,slots=2 -object
memory-backend-file,id=mem0,size=8192M,mem-path=/dev/zero,align=8192M
-device pc-dimm,id=dimm1,memdev=mem0
ERROR:hw/mem/memory-device.c:146:memory_device_get_free_addr: assertion
failed: (QEMU_ALIGN_UP(address_space_start, align) == address_space_start)
>
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> hw/mem/memory-device.c | 3 +--
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/hw/mem/memory-device.c b/hw/mem/memory-device.c
>> index 3e04f3954e..361d38bfc5 100644
>> --- a/hw/mem/memory-device.c
>> +++ b/hw/mem/memory-device.c
>> @@ -116,7 +116,6 @@ uint64_t memory_device_get_free_addr(MachineState *ms,
>> const uint64_t *hint,
>> address_space_start = ms->device_memory->base;
>> address_space_end = address_space_start +
>> memory_region_size(&ms->device_memory->mr);
>> - g_assert(QEMU_ALIGN_UP(address_space_start, align) ==
>> address_space_start);
>> g_assert(address_space_end >= address_space_start);
>>
>> memory_device_check_addable(ms, size, errp);
>> @@ -149,7 +148,7 @@ uint64_t memory_device_get_free_addr(MachineState *ms,
>> const uint64_t *hint,
>> return 0;
>> }
>> } else {
>> - new_addr = address_space_start;
>> + new_addr = QEMU_ALIGN_UP(address_space_start, align);
>> }
>>
>> /* find address range that will fit new memory device */
>
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
