From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LPh0v-0003Y4-Sg
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:37:17 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LPh0u-0003XH-63
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:37:17 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=39779 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LPh0t-0003XC-VH
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:37:16 -0500
Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:39496)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <paul@codesourcery.com>)
	id 1LPh0t-0007bp-NY
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:37:15 -0500
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4])
	by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <paul@codesourcery.com>) id 1LPh0s-00072c-N0
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:37:15 -0500
From: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: Add target memory mapping API
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 17:37:11 +0000
References: <1232308399-21679-1-git-send-email-avi@redhat.com>
	<1232308399-21679-2-git-send-email-avi@redhat.com>
	<20090121115201.GA12504@silverwood.ncultra.org>
In-Reply-To: <20090121115201.GA12504@silverwood.ncultra.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200901211737.12337.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, ncmike@ncultra.org

> Should there be one bounce buffer for each vcpu? Eventually the device
> model lock will be refactored to allow more parallelism, right?

Doubtful. Making the device models threadsafe would be a lot of work, 
introduce lots of subtle and hard to reproduce bugs, and probably give very 
little practical benefit.

Paul