From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:49482)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <dgibson@ozlabs.org>) id 1SU6mE-0007Ws-Fr
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 May 2012 21:42:15 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <dgibson@ozlabs.org>) id 1SU6mC-0007z7-Gg
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 May 2012 21:42:14 -0400
Received: from ozlabs.org ([203.10.76.45]:58241)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <dgibson@ozlabs.org>) id 1SU6mC-0007z0-5A
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 May 2012 21:42:12 -0400
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 11:23:35 +1000
From: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
Message-ID: <20120515012335.GD30229@truffala.fritz.box>
References: <1336625347-10169-1-git-send-email-benh@kernel.crashing.org>
	<1336625347-10169-3-git-send-email-benh@kernel.crashing.org>
	<4FB1A658.3050601@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4FB1A658.3050601@codemonkey.ws>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 02/13] Implement cpu_physical_memory_zero()
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 07:42:00PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 05/09/2012 11:48 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >From: David Gibson<david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
[snip]
> >@@ -3581,6 +3581,59 @@ void cpu_physical_memory_rw(target_phys_addr_t addr, uint8_t *buf,
> >      }
> >  }
> >
> >+void cpu_physical_memory_zero(target_phys_addr_t addr, int len)
> >+{
> 
> I'd think a memset() like interface would be better but...

I can work with that.

> We should definitely implement this function in terms of
> cpu_physical_memory_write instead of open coding the logic again.

Hrm.  Having solved merge conflicts several times by recopying the
cpu_physical_memory_rw() logic, I can certainly see the attraction in
that.  However, the point of this function is *not* to have to
allocate a temporary buffer, and I don't really see how to combine the
logic without that.

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson