[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] vl/s390x: fixup ram sizes for compat machines
From: |
Christian Borntraeger |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] vl/s390x: fixup ram sizes for compat machines |
Date: |
Thu, 2 Apr 2020 11:25:34 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0 |
On 02.04.20 11:22, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 15:14:12 +0200
> David Hildenbrand <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> On 01.04.20 14:37, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>
>>> +static ram_addr_t s390_fixup_ram_size(ram_addr_t sz)
>>> +{
>>> + /* same logic as in sclp.c */
>>> + int increment_size = 20;
>>> + ram_addr_t newsz;
>>> +
>>> + while ((sz >> increment_size) > MAX_STORAGE_INCREMENTS) {
>>> + increment_size++;
>>> + }
>>> + newsz = sz >> increment_size << increment_size;
>>> +
>>> + if (sz != newsz) {
>>> + qemu_printf("Ram size %" PRIu64 "MB was fixed up to %" PRIu64
>>> + "MB to match machine restrictions. Consider updating "
>>> + "the guest definition.i\n", sz / MiB, newsz / MiB);
>>
>> Not sure if news/zs will be printed correctly in case ram_addr_t !=
>> uint64_t.
>
> RAM_ADDR_FMT might be the right thing to use here?
I tried that but it returns a hex value in bytes. This is unusable. Thats why I
divided
by MiB. We could simply do an u64 cast?
Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] vl/s390x: fixup ram sizes for compat machines, Igor Mammedov, 2020/04/01
Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] vl/s390x: fixup ram sizes for compat machines, Igor Mammedov, 2020/04/02
Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] vl/s390x: fixup ram sizes for compat machines, Christian Borntraeger, 2020/04/02