On 01/10/2018 10:15, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 30/09/2018 17:55, Auger Eric wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>> On 9/26/18 11:42 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> With the new memory device functions in place, we can factor out
>>> plugging of memory devices completely.
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
>>> Reviewed-by: Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>> hw/mem/memory-device.c | 13 ++++++++++---
>>> hw/mem/pc-dimm.c | 9 +--------
>>> include/hw/mem/memory-device.h | 3 +--
>>> 3 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/hw/mem/memory-device.c b/hw/mem/memory-device.c
>>> index 54e3f23b15..3914e2fe6f 100644
>>> --- a/hw/mem/memory-device.c
>>> +++ b/hw/mem/memory-device.c
>>> @@ -275,10 +275,17 @@ out:
>>> error_propagate(errp, local_err);
>>> }
>>>
>>> -void memory_device_plug_region(MachineState *ms, MemoryRegion *mr,
>>> - uint64_t addr)
>>> +void memory_device_plug(MemoryDeviceState *md, MachineState *ms)
>>> {
>>> - /* we expect a previous call to memory_device_get_free_addr() */
>>> + const MemoryDeviceClass *mdc = MEMORY_DEVICE_GET_CLASS(md);
>>> + const uint64_t addr = mdc->get_addr(md);
>>> + MemoryRegion *mr;
>>> +
>>> + /*
>>> + * We expect a previous call to memory_device_pre_plug() succeeded so
>>> + * it and can't fail at this point.
>> comment to be reworded
>>
>
> Igor requested that rewording. I can turn that into "We expect that a
> previous call ... succeeded, so " ..
>
"We expect that a previous call to memory_device_pre_plug() succeeded,
so it can't fail at this point."
to be precise :)
>> Reviewed-by: Eric Auger <eric.au...@redhat.com>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Eric
>
>
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
