Hi Connie, On 10/4/22 6:41 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Tue, Oct 04 2022, Gavin Shan <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:This introduces virt_get_high_memmap_enabled() helper, which returns the pointer to vms->highmem_{redists, ecam, mmio}. The pointer will be used in the subsequent patches. No functional change intended. Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gs...@redhat.com> --- hw/arm/virt.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++------------- 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) diff --git a/hw/arm/virt.c b/hw/arm/virt.c index b0b679d1f4..59de7b78b5 100644 --- a/hw/arm/virt.c +++ b/hw/arm/virt.c @@ -1689,14 +1689,29 @@ static uint64_t virt_cpu_mp_affinity(VirtMachineState *vms, int idx) return arm_cpu_mp_affinity(idx, clustersz); }+static inline bool *virt_get_high_memmap_enabled(VirtMachineState *vms,+ int index) +{ + bool *enabled_array[] = { + &vms->highmem_redists, + &vms->highmem_ecam, + &vms->highmem_mmio, + }; + + assert(index - VIRT_LOWMEMMAP_LAST < ARRAY_SIZE(enabled_array));I wonder whether we want an assert(ARRAY_SIZE(extended_memmap) == ARRAY_SIZE(enabled_array))? IIUC, we never want those two to get out of sync?
Yeah, It makes sense to ensure both arrays synchronized. I will add the extra check in next respin.
+ + return enabled_array[index - VIRT_LOWMEMMAP_LAST]; +} +
Thanks, Gavin
