From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:37330)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1RGFWX-0007MF-FF
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:40:31 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1RGFWV-0001tU-SL
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:40:29 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:3916)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1RGFWV-0001tC-FP
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:40:27 -0400
Message-ID: <4E9DD627.2010701@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 21:40:23 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1318860167-14014-1-git-send-email-avi@redhat.com>
	<1318860167-14014-19-git-send-email-avi@redhat.com>
	<CAAu8pHu4Vueazi+9Q6U6Sq=cBk1fL+hso_v7=40FfTdx+Du12g@mail.gmail.com>
	<4E9C9488.4000908@redhat.com>
	<CAAu8pHtG9cdZfXqf_+Zde6VKu3Ku8CWjOWvucUJLQ9TBnMh-XQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAu8pHtG9cdZfXqf_+Zde6VKu3Ku8CWjOWvucUJLQ9TBnMh-XQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 18/18] tcx: convert to memory API
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: Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 10/18/2011 08:08 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
>
> > What would the API look like?  accept a range, return true if any of the
> > pages in the range are dirty?
>
> That would be 1:1 conversion but maybe better approach would be to
> return the first dirty address (or zero if not found), then various
> bitmap speedups may be available.

Ah, an iterator.  Yes, it would allow switching from iteration on scan
lines to iteration on actual dirty ranges.

Perhaps

    void memory_region_for_each_dirty_range(MemoryRegion *mr,
                                            target_phys_addr_t start,
                                            uint64_t size,
                                            void (*dirty)(void *opaque,
target_phys_addr_t start, uint64_t size),
                                            void *opaque);

-- 
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.