From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] vbus: add a "vbus-proxy" bus model Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 15:38:30 +0300 Message-ID: <4A8AA0C6.805@redhat.com> References: <4A8A67ED0200005A000528F5@sinclair.provo.novell.com> <4A8A67F70200005A000528F8@sinclair.provo.novell.com> <4A8A67F70200005A000528F8@sinclair.provo.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: mingo@elte.hu, gregory.haskins@gmail.com, alacrityvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, mst@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Gregory Haskins Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4A8A67F70200005A000528F8@sinclair.provo.novell.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 08/18/2009 03:36 PM, Gregory Haskins wrote: > Yeah, I agree. I am not advocating we expend energy on this now. But my thoughts at the time were that that particular problem can be solved at io-setup time with some kind of call to qualify the address. > > Iow: a slow path call with the address would return flags on whether iowrite() should do a real io, or a IOoHC. > Yes, it could work, though we'd need somewhere to stow this information. IIRC Arnd suggested a bit from the address itself. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function