From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1N6UcD-0003AY-My for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:36:57 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1N6Uc8-00034a-J8 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:36:56 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=42746 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1N6Uc8-00034O-6V for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:36:52 -0500 Received: from mail-yw0-f176.google.com ([209.85.211.176]:47078) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1N6Uc7-0004Nn-MD for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:36:51 -0500 Received: by ywh6 with SMTP id 6so1176493ywh.4 for ; Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:36:51 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <761ea48b0911061113n7f254ac4wd1d9f994abe0f53a@mail.gmail.com> References: <1257437115-22725-1-git-send-email-glommer@redhat.com> <20091106181153.GB12533@mothafucka.localdomain> <761ea48b0911061043i5dbaaab5td2e0d34cc4ed68a9@mail.gmail.com> <761ea48b0911061113n7f254ac4wd1d9f994abe0f53a@mail.gmail.com> From: Blue Swirl Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 21:36:30 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] v3: don't call reset functions on cpu initialization Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Laurent Desnogues Cc: Glauber Costa , aliguori@us.ibm.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Laurent Desnogues wrote: > On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Blue Swirl wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Laurent Desnogues >> wrote: > [...] >>> I honestly don't care that much as long as all targets still work >>> in user mode :-) >>> >>> The aim was to make Glauber's patch less intrusive. >> >> Given that only the new calls to cpu_reset are important and the >> removals are much less so (double reset shouldn't be a problem), the >> least intrusive version would be to just add the new calls and do the >> clean up later. > > Multiple resets would result in memory leaks for MIPS for instance. > So I don't think they are that innocuous. =C2=A0Though that probably is > more a problem of the MIPS reset than anything else :-) You are hinting at target-mips/translate_init.c: mmu_init()? Right, it shouldn't do the allocation.