Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] vl: move rom_load_all after machine init done

2015-07-07 Thread Paolo Bonzini
On 07/07/2015 11:07, Eric Auger wrote: > On 07/07/2015 11:02 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> >> >> On 07/07/2015 11:00, Eric Auger wrote: >>> Hi Paolo, Peter, >>> On 06/22/2015 11:58 AM, Eric Auger wrote: On 06/22/2015 11:53 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 22/06/2015 11:49, Eric Au

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] vl: move rom_load_all after machine init done

2015-07-07 Thread Eric Auger
On 07/07/2015 11:02 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 07/07/2015 11:00, Eric Auger wrote: >> Hi Paolo, Peter, >> On 06/22/2015 11:58 AM, Eric Auger wrote: >>> On 06/22/2015 11:53 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: On 22/06/2015 11:49, Eric Auger wrote: >>> It seems safe because rom_load_

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] vl: move rom_load_all after machine init done

2015-07-07 Thread Paolo Bonzini
On 07/07/2015 11:00, Eric Auger wrote: > Hi Paolo, Peter, > On 06/22/2015 11:58 AM, Eric Auger wrote: >> On 06/22/2015 11:53 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 22/06/2015 11:49, Eric Auger wrote: >> It seems safe because rom_load_all really doesn't load anything, it only >> does an o

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] vl: move rom_load_all after machine init done

2015-07-07 Thread Eric Auger
Hi Paolo, Peter, On 06/22/2015 11:58 AM, Eric Auger wrote: > On 06/22/2015 11:53 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> >> >> On 22/06/2015 11:49, Eric Auger wrote: > It seems safe because rom_load_all really doesn't load anything, it only > does an overlap check. Is this right? >>> it does the check

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] vl: move rom_load_all after machine init done

2015-06-22 Thread Eric Auger
On 06/22/2015 11:53 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 22/06/2015 11:49, Eric Auger wrote: It seems safe because rom_load_all really doesn't load anything, it only does an overlap check. Is this right? >> it does the check + isrom field setting Is the bug that some overlapping

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] vl: move rom_load_all after machine init done

2015-06-22 Thread Paolo Bonzini
On 22/06/2015 11:49, Eric Auger wrote: >> > It seems safe because rom_load_all really doesn't load anything, it only >> > does an overlap check. Is this right? > it does the check + isrom field setting >> > >> > Is the bug that some overlapping ROMs are not detected? The commit >> > message is

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] vl: move rom_load_all after machine init done

2015-06-22 Thread Eric Auger
Hi Paolo, On 06/22/2015 11:43 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 22/06/2015 11:26, Eric Auger wrote: >> ping >> >> Do you think that change is sensible? Since this takes place in vl.c I >> am quite scared but with your experience you may know how much this can >> be wrong. > > It seems safe becau

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] vl: move rom_load_all after machine init done

2015-06-22 Thread Paolo Bonzini
On 22/06/2015 11:26, Eric Auger wrote: > ping > > Do you think that change is sensible? Since this takes place in vl.c I > am quite scared but with your experience you may know how much this can > be wrong. It seems safe because rom_load_all really doesn't load anything, it only does an overlap

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] vl: move rom_load_all after machine init done

2015-06-22 Thread Eric Auger
ping Do you think that change is sensible? Since this takes place in vl.c I am quite scared but with your experience you may know how much this can be wrong. Best Regards Eric On 06/16/2015 06:07 PM, Eric Auger wrote: > On ARM, commit ac9d32e39664e060cd1b538ff190980d57ad69e4 postponed the > mem

[Qemu-devel] [PATCH] vl: move rom_load_all after machine init done

2015-06-16 Thread Eric Auger
On ARM, commit ac9d32e39664e060cd1b538ff190980d57ad69e4 postponed the memory preparation for boot until the machine init done notifier. This has for consequence to insert ROM at machine init done time. However the rom_load_all function stayed called before the ROM are inserted. As a consequence th