On Mi, 2016-01-20 at 19:25 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 03:15:04PM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 01:34:29PM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > [...] > > > Considering that we never supported > > > gigabyte_align && max_ram_below_4g > 3G || > > > max_ram_below_4g > 3.5G > > > before, we could simply remove the MachineClass::gigabyte_align > > > field from pc_piix, and just do the following: > > > > > > * pc > 1.7: max_ram_below_4g = 3G > > > (equivalent to gigabyte_align=true) > > > * pc <= 1.7: max_ram_below_4g = 3.5G > > > (equivalent to gigabyte_align=false) > > > > Ignore the suggestion above. I forgot that gigabyte_align applies > > only if ram_size > 3.5GB (so setting max_ram_below_4g = 3G on > > pc > 1.7 wouldn't work). So, unless somebody has a suggestion > > that makes this logic simpler: > > I wonder whether we should just bite the bullet and ask management to > maintain the physical memory map for us, instead of trying to give us > hints.
I doubt this simplified things, given the backward compatibility constrains we have. cheers, Gerd