Re: [PATCH v1 7/9] memory: introduce RAM_NORESERVE and wire it up in qemu_ram_mmap()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 02.03.21 21:54, Peter Xu wrote:
On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 08:02:34PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
@@ -174,12 +175,18 @@ void *qemu_ram_mmap(int fd,
                       size_t align,
                       bool readonly,
                       bool shared,
-                    bool is_pmem)
+                    bool is_pmem,
+                    bool noreserve)

Maybe at some point we should use flags too here to cover all bools.


Right. I guess the main point was to not reuse RAM_XXX.

Should I introduce RAM_MMAP_XXX ?

Maybe we can directly use MAP_*?  Since I see qemu_ram_mmap() should only exist

I think the issue is that there is for example no flag that corresponds to "is_pmem" - and the fallback logic in our mmap code to make "is_pmem" still work is a little bit more involved. In addition, "readonly" translates to PROT_READ ...

with CONFIG_POSIX.  However indeed I see no sign to extend more bools in the
near future either, so maybe also fine to keep it as is, as 4 bools still looks
okay - your call. :)

Well, I had the same idea when I added yet another bool :) But I guess we won't be adding a lot of additional flags in the near future. (MAP_POPULATE? ;) fortunately we use a different approach to populate memory)

I'll think about it, not sure yet if this is worth proper flags. Thanks!

--
Thanks,

David / dhildenb




[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux