On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 08:32:27AM -0600, Cam Macdonell wrote:
> >
> > +ram_addr_t qemu_ram_map(ram_addr_t size, void *host)
> > +{
> > + RAMBlock *new_block;
> > +
> > + size = TARGET_PAGE_ALIGN(size);
> > + new_block = qemu_malloc(sizeof(*new_block));
> > +
> > + new_block->host = host;
> > +
> > + new_block->offset = last_ram_offset;
> > + new_block->length = size;
> > +
> > + new_block->next = ram_blocks;
> > + ram_blocks = new_block;
> > +
> > + phys_ram_dirty = qemu_realloc(phys_ram_dirty,
> > + (last_ram_offset + size) >> TARGET_PAGE_BITS);
> > + memset(phys_ram_dirty + (last_ram_offset >> TARGET_PAGE_BITS),
> > + 0xff, size >> TARGET_PAGE_BITS);
> > +
> > + last_ram_offset += size;
> > +
> > + if (kvm_enabled())
> > + kvm_setup_guest_memory(new_block->host, size);
> > +
> > + return new_block->offset;
> > +}
> > +
> > ram_addr_t qemu_ram_alloc(ram_addr_t size)
> > {
> > RAMBlock *new_block;
> > --
> > 1.6.6.1
> >
>
> Sorry for being late to reply, is there a strong reason not to have
> the function handle the mmap itself? As As Anthony points out, that
> way we don't have worry about realloc changing the pointer in the
> function.
The caller might want a different protection for the memory map.
--
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
