From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HeXxR-00058P-SD
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:50:01 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HeXxO-00056V-Gk
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:50:01 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HeXxO-00056A-9L
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:49:58 -0400
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <paul@codesourcery.com>) id 1HeXsP-0006rq-WB
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:44:50 -0400
From: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu/hw pckbd.c
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 15:44:45 +0100
References: <E1HdZzG-0007a3-4T@cvs> <200704181708.22450.paul@codesourcery.com>
	<1176972212.6333.101.camel@rapid>
In-Reply-To: <1176972212.6333.101.camel@rapid>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200704191544.45984.paul@codesourcery.com>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>, "J. Mayer" <l_indien@magic.fr>

> > While you're fixing this, it would be good to fix overlapping devices as
> > well ;-) Currently if you (temporarily) have overlapping regions then
> > remove one of them you end up with unmapped memory.
>
> What is the correct behavior in such a case ? What device would you
> actually see ? May be it different to one architecture to another ?
> I think there are busses and/or architectures where this is not
> possible, you would only get a fault on the bus in such a case. So it
> seems to me not to be easy to find a generic and appropriate way to fix
> this behavior, don't you think ?

I'm more concerned with what happens with devices with configurable address 
ranges overlap temporarily, eg. when an OS is re-allocating PCI device memory 
regions.

Paul