On Tue, 26 May 2015 12:22:57 +1000
David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> The ram_limit field was imported from sPAPREnvironment where it predates
> the machine's ram size being available generically from machine->ram_size.
>
> Worse, the existing code was inconsistent about where it got the ram size
> from. Sometimes it used spapr->ram_limit, sometimes the global 'ram_size'
> and sometimes a local 'ram_size' masking the global.
>
> This cleans up the code to consistently use machine->ram_size, eliminating
> spapr->ram_limit in the process.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
> ---
> hw/ppc/spapr.c | 22 ++++++++++++----------
> hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c | 3 ++-
> include/hw/ppc/spapr.h | 1 -
> 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr.c b/hw/ppc/spapr.c
> index 0016f25..31b29d6 100644
> --- a/hw/ppc/spapr.c
> +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr.c
[...]
> @@ -649,6 +652,7 @@ static void spapr_populate_memory_node(void *fdt, int
> nodeid, hwaddr start,
>
> static int spapr_populate_memory(sPAPRMachineState *spapr, void *fdt)
> {
> + MachineState *machine = &spapr->parent_obj;
Here you use &spapr->parent_obj ... below you use MACHINE(spapr) ...
looks somewhat inconsequent ==> maybe also use MACHINE(spapr) here?
...
> diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c b/hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c
> index 1a20884..652ddf6 100644
> --- a/hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c
> +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c
> @@ -87,6 +87,7 @@ static inline bool valid_pte_index(CPUPPCState *env,
> target_ulong pte_index)
> static target_ulong h_enter(PowerPCCPU *cpu, sPAPRMachineState *spapr,
> target_ulong opcode, target_ulong *args)
> {
> + MachineState *machine = MACHINE(spapr);
> CPUPPCState *env = &cpu->env;
> target_ulong flags = args[0];
> target_ulong pte_index = args[1];
Apart from the above nit, patch looks fine to me, so:
Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com>
Another question out of curiosity: Do you know if the global "ram_size"
variable is scheduled to be removed soon in the future?
Thomas
