From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1JAEjk-00057u-37
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 20:19:08 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1JAEjg-00053b-Vr
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 20:19:07 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAEjg-00053B-PM
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 20:19:04 -0500
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 1JAEjg-0004tB-A5
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 20:19:04 -0500
From: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu cpu-all.h exec.c
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 01:18:58 +0000
References: <E1J9kQZ-0006Tj-Gh@cvs.savannah.gnu.org>
	<200801021718.06316.paul@codesourcery.com>
	<f43fc5580801020931v6166c8a2q2d6526bec4e91e73@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <f43fc5580801020931v6166c8a2q2d6526bec4e91e73@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200801030118.59970.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>

On Wednesday 02 January 2008, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On 1/2/08, Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> > > Also the opaque parameter may need to be different for each function,
> > > it just didn't matter for the unassigned memory case.
> >
> > Do you really have systems where independent devices need to respond to
> > different sized accesses to the same address?
>
> I don't think so. But one day unassigned or even normal RAM memory
> access may need an opaque parameter, so passing the device's opaque to
> unassigned memory handler is wrong.

I'm not convinced.  Your current implementation seems to introduce an extra 
level of indirection without any plausible benefit.

If you're treating unassigned memory differently it needs to be handled much 
earlier that so you can raise CPU exceptions.

Paul