From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [RFC v1] Add declarations for hierarchical memory region API Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 10:01:21 +0300 Message-ID: <4DD8B4C1.7090900@redhat.com> References: <1305814352-15044-1-git-send-email-avi@redhat.com> <1305814352-15044-2-git-send-email-avi@redhat.com> <4DD580FD.2030409@codemonkey.ws> <4DD6331E.8000105@redhat.com> <4DD67563.9080803@twiddle.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Richard Henderson Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4DD67563.9080803@twiddle.net> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 05/20/2011 05:06 PM, Richard Henderson wrote: > Is this structure honestly any better than 4 function pointers? > I can't see that it is, myself. > That was requested by Anthony. And in fact we have two bits of information per access size, one is whether the access is allowed or not, the other is whether we want to use a larger or smaller access size function (useful for auto-splitting a 64-bit access into two 32-bit accesses for example). -- I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this signature is too narrow to contain.