On 20.07.21 15:37, Stefan Berger wrote:
On 7/20/21 9:03 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:Let's reuse qemu_get_guest_simple_memory_mapping(), which does exactly what we want. Cc: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lur...@redhat.com> Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> Cc: Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> Cc: Alex Williamson <alex.william...@redhat.com> Cc: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilb...@redhat.com> Cc: Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com> Cc: Claudio Fontana <cfont...@suse.de> Cc: Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> Cc: "Alex Bennée" <alex.ben...@linaro.org> Cc: Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> Cc: Laurent Vivier <lviv...@redhat.com> Cc: Stefan Berger <stef...@linux.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> --- softmmu/memory_mapping.c | 8 +------- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/softmmu/memory_mapping.c b/softmmu/memory_mapping.c index e7af276546..d63f896b30 100644 --- a/softmmu/memory_mapping.c +++ b/softmmu/memory_mapping.c @@ -288,8 +288,6 @@ void qemu_get_guest_memory_mapping(MemoryMappingList *list, Error **errp) { CPUState *cpu, *first_paging_enabled_cpu; - GuestPhysBlock *block; - ram_addr_t offset, length;first_paging_enabled_cpu = find_paging_enabled_cpu(first_cpu);if (first_paging_enabled_cpu) { @@ -309,11 +307,7 @@ void qemu_get_guest_memory_mapping(MemoryMappingList *list, * If the guest doesn't use paging, the virtual address is equal to physical * address. */ - QTAILQ_FOREACH(block, &guest_phys_blocks->head, next) { - offset = block->target_start; - length = block->target_end - block->target_start; - create_new_memory_mapping(list, offset, offset, length); - } + qemu_get_guest_simple_memory_mapping(list, guest_phys_blocks); }I thought I'd find a 1:1 replacement for the above here: void qemu_get_guest_simple_memory_mapping(MemoryMappingList *list, const GuestPhysBlockList *guest_phys_blocks) { GuestPhysBlock *block; QTAILQ_FOREACH(block, &guest_phys_blocks->head, next) { create_new_memory_mapping(list, block->target_start, 0, block->target_end - block->target_start); } } But this is calling create_new_memory_mapping() with a different 3rd parameter: 0 vs. offset.
Oh, thanks for noticing! Will drop this patch then -- thanks! -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
