On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 10:17:07AM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 08:40:39PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > lib/x86/vm.c | 7 +++++++
> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/x86/vm.c b/lib/x86/vm.c
> > index 906fbf2..9771bd7 100644
> > --- a/lib/x86/vm.c
> > +++ b/lib/x86/vm.c
> > @@ -151,9 +151,16 @@ static void setup_mmu(unsigned long len)
> >
> > void setup_vm()
> > {
> > + static bool vm_inited = false;
> > +
> > + if (vm_inited) {
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
> > end_of_memory = fwcfg_get_u64(FW_CFG_RAM_SIZE);
> > free_memory(&edata, end_of_memory - (unsigned long)&edata);
> > setup_mmu(end_of_memory);
> > + vm_inited = true;
> > }
> >
> > void *vmalloc(unsigned long size)
> > --
> > 2.7.4
> >
>
> My preference for kvm-unit-tests is that we avoid tolerating
> unit tests that do things "wrong". This patch allows setup_vm
> to be called multiple times, but why do that? Why not just
> ensure it's only called once? If it looks like a mistake that's
> easy to make and hard to debug, then maybe we need an assert
>
> assert(!end_of_memory); /* ensure we haven't already called setup_vm */
>
> or something.
Yeah, sure. The first two patches are just something good to have IMO,
I did it since I see we have similar thing in setup_idt(), and I feel
it good. I can replace it with an assertion.
Thanks.
-- peterx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
