On 06.09.23 16:14, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 29.08.23 00:26, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
On 25/8/23 15:21, David Hildenbrand wrote:
Let's return the number of free slots instead of only checking if there
is a free slot. While at it, check all address spaces, which will also
consider SMM under x86 correctly.
Make the stub return UINT_MAX, such that we can call the function
unconditionally.
This is a preparation for memory devices that consume multiple memslots.
Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
accel/kvm/kvm-all.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++-------------
accel/stubs/kvm-stub.c | 4 ++--
hw/mem/memory-device.c | 2 +-
include/sysemu/kvm.h | 2 +-
include/sysemu/kvm_int.h | 1 +
5 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
diff --git a/accel/stubs/kvm-stub.c b/accel/stubs/kvm-stub.c
index 235dc661bc..f39997d86e 100644
--- a/accel/stubs/kvm-stub.c
+++ b/accel/stubs/kvm-stub.c
@@ -109,9 +109,9 @@ int kvm_irqchip_remove_irqfd_notifier_gsi(KVMState *s, EventNotifier *n,
return -ENOSYS;
}
-bool kvm_has_free_slot(MachineState *ms)
+unsigned int kvm_get_free_memslots(void)
{
- return false;
+ return UINT_MAX;
Isn't it clearer returning 0 here and keeping kvm_enabled() below?
I tried doing it similarly to vhost_has_free_slot().
I'll leave the kvm_enabled() check in place, looks cleaner.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
