Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/16/2010 12:53 PM, Yoshiaki Tamura wrote:
Replaces byte-based phys_ram_dirty bitmap with
three bit-based phys_ram_dirty bitmap.
On allocation, it sets all bits in the bitmap.
Signed-off-by: Yoshiaki Tamura<tamura.yoshiaki@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: OHMURA Kei<ohmura.kei@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
exec.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++-----
1 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/exec.c b/exec.c
index 9bcb4de..ba334e7 100644
--- a/exec.c
+++ b/exec.c
@@ -119,7 +119,9 @@ uint8_t *code_gen_ptr;
#if !defined(CONFIG_USER_ONLY)
int phys_ram_fd;
-uint8_t *phys_ram_dirty;
+unsigned long *phys_ram_vga_dirty;
+unsigned long *phys_ram_code_dirty;
+unsigned long *phys_ram_migration_dirty;
Would be nice to make this an array.
Thanks for pointing out.
I have a question regarding the index of the array.
From the compatibility perspective, I would prefer using the existing macros.
#define VGA_DIRTY_FLAG 0x01
#define CODE_DIRTY_FLAG 0x02
#define MIGRATION_DIRTY_FLAG 0x08
However, if I use them as is, I'll get a sparse array...
Is it acceptable to change these values like 0, 1, 2?
--
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
