From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1JODee-00044b-Qj
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 10 Feb 2008 09:59:40 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1JODed-00043k-5Z
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 10 Feb 2008 09:59:40 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JODed-00043h-0F
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 10 Feb 2008 09:59:39 -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 1JODec-0001YH-IL
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 10 Feb 2008 09:59:38 -0500
From: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 2/6] Use correct types to enable > 2G
	support (v2)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 14:59:32 +0000
References: <1201903921-1125-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com>
	<200802101412.27850.paul@codesourcery.com>
	<47AF104C.3060401@qumranet.com>
In-Reply-To: <47AF104C.3060401@qumranet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200802101459.33683.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: Avi Kivity <avi@qumranet.com>
Cc: Izik Eidus <izike@qumranet.com>, kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Sunday 10 February 2008, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Paul Brook wrote:
> >>> as far as i remember it was used to address something with
> >>> cpu_physical_memory_rw() probably related to &TARGET_PAGE_SIZE
> >>> or ~TARGET_PAGE_SIZE,
> >>>
> >>> the fact is that i dont know if it ever fixed anything
> >>
> >> It fixes TARGET_PAGE_MASK, defined one line downscreen.
> >
> > That doesn't really answer the question. What was wrong with the original
> > definition?
>
> There are many instances of ((physical address) & TARGET_PAGE_MASK)
> scattered throughout the code.  With 64-bit physical addresses, this
> causes truncation.

No it doesn't. TARGET_PAGE_MASK will be sign extended to the width of 
physical_address. This is why I asked for a concrete example of something 
that broke.

Paul