Il 09/09/2013 16:06, Igor Mammedov ha scritto: > On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 22:33:24 +0200 > Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: > >> Am 23.07.2013 18:22, schrieb Igor Mammedov: >>> Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com> >>> --- >>> vl.c | 7 +------ >>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/vl.c b/vl.c >>> index 8190504..bf0c658 100644 >>> --- a/vl.c >>> +++ b/vl.c >>> @@ -2947,7 +2947,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv, char **envp) >>> module_call_init(MODULE_INIT_MACHINE); >>> machine = find_default_machine(); >>> cpu_model = NULL; >>> - ram_size = 0; >>> + ram_size = DEFAULT_RAM_SIZE * 1024 * 1024; >>> snapshot = 0; >>> cyls = heads = secs = 0; >>> translation = BIOS_ATA_TRANSLATION_AUTO; >>> @@ -4064,11 +4064,6 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv, char **envp) >>> exit(1); >>> } >>> >>> - /* init the memory */ >>> - if (ram_size == 0) { >>> - ram_size = DEFAULT_RAM_SIZE * 1024 * 1024; >>> - } >>> - >>> if (qemu_opts_foreach(qemu_find_opts("device"), device_help_func, >>> NULL, 0) >>> != 0) { >>> exit(0); >> >> Commit message doesn't give any explanation why? > it was intended as cleanup > >> >> What happens with -m 0? My guess is the old code translates that to the >> default size, where by intializing the default earlier it would stay. > patch is broken in this aspect. It aborts on start up with -m 0 > > The question is if -m 0 is correct value, perhaps QEMU should exit with > error message in this case, instead of silent fallback to default?
I guess we have to keep it for backwards compatibility. Paolo