From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49320) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZfjMv-0000jQ-6J for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 26 Sep 2015 02:54:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZfjMt-0006uW-Od for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 26 Sep 2015 02:54:01 -0400 Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 16:54:14 +1000 From: David Gibson Message-ID: <20150926065414.GM11620@voom.redhat.com> References: <1443069231-14856-1-git-send-email-david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> <1443069231-14856-6-git-send-email-david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> <56052DEC.6040500@redhat.com> <20150925113349.GL11620@voom.redhat.com> <5605383E.1090406@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="LJm8egi4vkexsie5" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5605383E.1090406@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 5/7] memory: Allow replay of IOMMU mapping notifications List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: lvivier@redhat.com, thuth@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, abologna@redhat.com, alex.williamson@redhat.com, qemu-ppc@nongnu.org --LJm8egi4vkexsie5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 02:04:14PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 >=20 >=20 >=20 > On 25/09/2015 13:33, David Gibson wrote: > > 1) Is there a case where using the no-replay functions makes > > sense? > >=20 > > I'm not sure. I think vfio is the only user so far, so I guess > > that's technically a no. I was reluctant to change the interface > > and semantics just off the bat, though. >=20 > Considering memory_region_listener does the reply, I think it's > okay. Uh.. just to be clear, are you saying I should change this so there's only the replaying interface? > For solving the problem that Laurent mentioned, using int128 seems > like the easiest solution... Maybe. It means I have to do all the address calculation in the loop with an int128, then truncate it to do the actual call. That seems harder to me than the overflow check I added, but I suppose it's conceptually similar in some ways. --=20 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 --LJm8egi4vkexsie5 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJWBkEWAAoJEGw4ysog2bOSkeQQAM3/1VgoTVxENhDsgshRDkgs rpqbN0wJypRMUz5QSAHQ8MpH+OFkggOBN19T0AYNIFakaZXR+7noKkD5CL3Mu4Ho XKatGGj0aepV7c7GAQnGsa5Fmx984YXvn9oQ+0aj4c6ZyI40RCtnasFJV9L+NWcr +WWwQigfZygLKr4lyrqlVYCHqz6mp7TdVXWEQ8DM3PwnoNQR0kHmMiK/0L8dGPrp KiIJEVsZ5IN1+dxuQwg2BZp/2xvibJEWwq4X/Va75P91L+PgnVyZF25lmJI34E7q rqdGTx4nL+0FCNnm6vlUevdMkUM81N6GxY7LgS/ugqU8a62rU6CiCeAgXTeTkNI9 HLU8W6v2hBjV8FZnRtYKuIbRd4K5DTajZ3m1q13/zireFZM9TAEvYn0WNo8wfYdg YccHB9eFyDgERjNA0AVX+SAqhA5wGCQX+DLotS4a9arziiY7jwVonNV7a9cVFs9p JK2gUzCEduOyLd91aJSTjdyXtzj2vjCRjCE9LmyNYONbYgOZeuTbwKNMfctX5+K5 zluH91QOxv6gDvqHPA34KOvIrV0MZEPJ+C/WFhMQe0/zI3n8BGp+sGnVh3KVTwBu EpMdOt/T/N3R4DhZOBOYVX5DGhGqaG8tIOtqHKRhO5pGn0kuySa6paiw/WR5y5hw r/xiZ0G9mgancBxXHdoQ =pRdA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --LJm8egi4vkexsie5--