On 03/07/2016 05:35 PM, Janosch Frank wrote: > On 03/07/2016 10:17 AM, Fam Zheng wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Fam Zheng <f...@redhat.com> >> >> --- >> >> This goes after "[PATCH v2 4/7] memory: Drop MemoryRegion.ram_addr" (or >> squashed into it if we want strict synchronization). >> --- >> scripts/dump-guest-memory.py | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/scripts/dump-guest-memory.py b/scripts/dump-guest-memory.py >> index f274bf8..c0a2e99 100644 >> --- a/scripts/dump-guest-memory.py >> +++ b/scripts/dump-guest-memory.py >> @@ -352,7 +352,7 @@ def memory_region_get_ram_ptr(memory_region): >> return >> (memory_region_get_ram_ptr(memory_region["alias"].dereference()) >> + memory_region["alias_offset"]) >> >> - return qemu_get_ram_ptr(memory_region["ram_addr"] & TARGET_PAGE_MASK) >> + return qemu_get_ram_ptr(memory_region["ram_block"]["offset"]) > > If you get rid of TARGET_PAGE_MASK you might also want to get rid of its > definition, we only use it once. > > I only had a short look, I'll look through your patches tomorrow morning. > > Cheers
Didn't see any obvious problems. Thanks for CCing. Cheers >> >> >> def get_guest_phys_blocks(): >> > >
