* Laurent Vivier (lviv...@redhat.com) wrote: > On 06/02/2017 18:32, Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git) wrote: > > From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilb...@redhat.com> > > > > Create ram_block_discard_range in exec.c to replace > > postcopy_ram_discard_range and most of ram_discard_range. > > > > Those two routines are a bit of a weird combination, and > > ram_discard_range is about to get more complex for hugepages. > > It's OS dependent code (so shouldn't be in migration/ram.c) but > > it needs quite a bit of the innards of RAMBlock so doesn't belong in > > the os*.c. > > > > Signed-off-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilb...@redhat.com> > > --- > > exec.c | 59 > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > include/exec/cpu-common.h | 1 + > > 2 files changed, 60 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/exec.c b/exec.c > > index 8b9ed73..e040cdf 100644 > > --- a/exec.c > > +++ b/exec.c > > @@ -45,6 +45,12 @@ > > #include "exec/address-spaces.h" > > #include "sysemu/xen-mapcache.h" > > #include "trace-root.h" > > + > > +#ifdef CONFIG_FALLOCATE_PUNCH_HOLE > > +#include <fcntl.h> > > +#include <linux/falloc.h> > > +#endif > > Should it be in PATCH 05/16 instead?
Ah, yes, it should. Dave > Laurent > -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
