On 07.01.20 12:21, Igor Mammedov wrote: > On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 18:03:49 +0100 >> So, I'd suggest to drop your wrong patch #43. > As you noted in your first reply, patch is correct.
You probably got me wrong. Your patch #43 is wrong, and your fixup patch to some degree reverts it back again. In patch #43 you error out and stop, which real hardware wouldn't do. Real hardware simply ignores the memory which wouldn't be used. > All it's doing is validating user input versus RAM size > actually supported by the current code, telling user> current supported limit > and enforcing it. Real hardware would not tell user. > I agree it's inconvenience for the users since they > won't be able to specify non-sense values and still > get board running, but that's clear user error and > should be corrected on user side and not by QEMU > magically masking wrong CLI values. I disagree. Everything worked as expected before, but with *your* change now people might need to modify their CLI. 4GB is a valid amount of memory which can be plugged into the virtual and physical machine. It's not magic, it's how the architecture works and you changed it. > Since it could be fixed on user side, I care less > about user convenience when it comes to correctness > and unified code. IMHO, you should care about that the emulation works the same way as physical machine. Not, how you want to educate end users. >> If you don't want to drop it, my suggestion for a commit message is: >> >> hppa: Revert last wrong patch and give warning if user specified > 4GB RAM > > I have to disagree on definition of wrong here, > in my opinion covering up user errors is wrong especially > when all users have to do is to adapt their CLI. See above. Nobody ever needs to adapt anything unless your patches gets applied. Helge
