From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/04] qemu-kvm: Remove the dependency for phys_ram_base for ipf.c Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 14:05:00 +0300 Message-ID: <49F6E2DC.3070405@redhat.com> References: <706158FABBBA044BAD4FE898A02E4BC236A2BC04@pdsmsx503.ccr.corp.intel.com> <49F6D13C.1060908@redhat.com> <706158FABBBA044BAD4FE898A02E4BC236A2BC2D@pdsmsx503.ccr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "kvm-ia64@vger.kernel.org" , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" To: "Zhang, Xiantao" Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:41245 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932231AbZD1LFB (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Apr 2009 07:05:01 -0400 In-Reply-To: <706158FABBBA044BAD4FE898A02E4BC236A2BC2D@pdsmsx503.ccr.corp.intel.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Zhang, Xiantao wrote: >> >> qemu_get_ram_ptr() returns a pointer. Don't cast it to a ram_addr_t, >> leave it a pointer. >> >> But why not use cpu_physical_memory_write() (or >> cpu_physical_memory_write_rom())? It's much simpler and cleaner. >> > > Good suggestion! I just followed the original logic. Updated the patch. > Xiantao Thanks, applied. -- Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 11:05:00 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/04] qemu-kvm: Remove the dependency for phys_ram_base Message-Id: <49F6E2DC.3070405@redhat.com> List-Id: References: <706158FABBBA044BAD4FE898A02E4BC236A2BC04@pdsmsx503.ccr.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <706158FABBBA044BAD4FE898A02E4BC236A2BC04@pdsmsx503.ccr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: kvm-ia64@vger.kernel.org Zhang, Xiantao wrote: >> >> qemu_get_ram_ptr() returns a pointer. Don't cast it to a ram_addr_t, >> leave it a pointer. >> >> But why not use cpu_physical_memory_write() (or >> cpu_physical_memory_write_rom())? It's much simpler and cleaner. >> > > Good suggestion! I just followed the original logic. Updated the patch. > Xiantao Thanks, applied. -- Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.