From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:47636)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rth7680@gmail.com>) id 1Rhptf-00006F-7O
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 02 Jan 2012 16:58:24 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rth7680@gmail.com>) id 1Rhptd-0003wB-Pv
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 02 Jan 2012 16:58:23 -0500
Received: from mail-iy0-f173.google.com ([209.85.210.173]:64543)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rth7680@gmail.com>) id 1Rhptd-0003w6-Mu
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 02 Jan 2012 16:58:21 -0500
Received: by iagj37 with SMTP id j37so34629769iag.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 02 Jan 2012 13:58:20 -0800 (PST)
Sender: Richard Henderson <rth7680@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4F022872.4090701@twiddle.net>
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 08:58:10 +1100
From: Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1325522015-503-1-git-send-email-avi@redhat.com>
	<1325522015-503-7-git-send-email-avi@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <1325522015-503-7-git-send-email-avi@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 06/16] Avoid range comparisons on io index
 types
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: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 01/03/2012 03:33 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> -    if ((pd & ~TARGET_PAGE_MASK) > IO_MEM_ROM && !(pd & IO_MEM_ROMD)) {
> +    if (!is_ram_rom(pd) && !(pd & IO_MEM_ROMD)) {
>          /* IO memory case (romd handled later) */

Perhaps (!is_ram_rom_romd(pd))?

At least that's what I see from DeMorgan's, even though it
doesn't quite seem to tally with the comment...


r~