Re: [Qemu-devel] RFC: memory API changes

[Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>]

On 24/03/2015 17:35, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 24 March 2015 at 16:23, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> On 24 March 2015 at 15:08, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> On 24/03/2015 15:53, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>>>>>> In any case, the removal or segregation of ld/st*_phys should be a
>>>>>>> separate series for ease of review.
>>>>> Who wants to remove ld/st*_phys? Not me...
>>>>
>>>> Well, you want to rename them _and_ add new arguments.  Basically at the
>>>> end they don't exist anymore as we know them now. :)
>>>
>>> I guess :-)  So what exactly would you like to see as a
>>> separate series?
>>
>> Adding the arguments / renaming the functions
> 
> OK. (This will need the patch that actually at least defines
> the MemTxAttr and MemTxResult types, obviously.)
> 
>> , for those callers
>> of ld/st*_phys that use cs->as as the first argument.
> 
> ...but I don't understand this caveat. I want to add arguments
> and rename the functions for *all* callers of ld/st*_phys.
> I don't want to specialcase the ones which happen to be
> operating on cs->as.

The ones that operate on cs->as could become (for some CPUs at least)
special-cased accessors like the bus ones; for example building the
MemTxAttrs according to internal CPU state.

ld/st*_phys actually started as CPU-specific accessors, and most uses
are still of that kind, so it makes sense to me that we special-case
them.  Maybe it limits churn, maybe it doesn't.  But if it doesn't, it's
not like anything is lost.

Paolo