From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:47252)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1QxuhX-0000nT-4J
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 01:48:03 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1QxuhW-0004dV-4M
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 01:48:03 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:56314)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1QxuhV-0004dQ-Q8
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 01:48:02 -0400
Message-ID: <4E5B280B.4090204@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 08:47:55 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1314389053-30841-1-git-send-email-lmr@redhat.com>
	<4E580E8E.2060200@codemonkey.ws>
In-Reply-To: <4E580E8E.2060200@codemonkey.ws>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] hw: Add test device for unittests execution
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues <lmr@redhat.com>, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>

On 08/27/2011 12:22 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
> I think I posted patches at some point for kvm unittests to use a 
> standard UART.  Was there any reason not to do use a UART?
>

No.

>> +static void test_device_exit(void *opaque, uint32_t addr, uint32_t 
>> data)
>> +{
>> +    exit(data);
>> +}
>
> Port 501 can do this.

Right.

>
>> +
>> +static uint32_t test_device_memsize_read(void *opaque, uint32_t addr)
>> +{
>> +    return ram_size;
>> +}
>
> This can be read through fw_cfg, any reason to do PIO for this?

Legacy.  We even have a fw_cfg driver in k-u-t.git.

>> +static void test_device_flush_page(void *opaque, uint32_t addr, 
>> uint32_t data)
>> +{
>> +    target_phys_addr_t len = 4096;
>> +    void *a = cpu_physical_memory_map(data&  ~0xffful,&len, 0);
>> +
>> +    mprotect(a, 4096, PROT_NONE);
>> +    mprotect(a, 4096, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE);
>> +    cpu_physical_memory_unmap(a, len, 0, 0);
>
> This hard codes page size (get it via sysconf). 

(or getpagesize())

> I think mprotect probably isn't available on windows either.

Google thinks it is.

> Should this use MemoryRegion?
>

Yes.


Lucas, do you want to tackle these yourself?  I'll help with any 
questions.  Otherwise I'll do it.


-- 
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.