From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:37207)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1TJf5B-0006AW-26
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 04 Oct 2012 02:38:53 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1TJf5A-0001Ni-4R
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 04 Oct 2012 02:38:52 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:33778)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1TJf59-0001Ne-SK
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 04 Oct 2012 02:38:52 -0400
Message-ID: <506D2EEE.3010904@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 08:38:38 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1349280245-16341-1-git-send-email-avi@redhat.com>
	<1349280245-16341-20-git-send-email-avi@redhat.com>
	<CAAu8pHtDW7Hi+JY7SqgQfNx+KpjSbBJAUrUS+nKkOs84K2OxEA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAu8pHtDW7Hi+JY7SqgQfNx+KpjSbBJAUrUS+nKkOs84K2OxEA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC v1 19/22] memory: per-AddressSpace dispatch
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: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>, liu ping fan <qemulist@gmail.com>

On 10/03/2012 10:24 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
> >
> >  #else
> > -void cpu_physical_memory_rw(target_phys_addr_t addr, uint8_t *buf,
> > -                            int len, int is_write)
> > +
> > +void address_space_rw(AddressSpace *as, target_phys_addr_t addr, uint8_t *buf,
> > +                      int len, bool is_write)
>
> I'd make address_space_* use uint64_t instead of target_phys_addr_t
> for the address. It may actually be buggy for 32 bit
> target_phys_addr_t  and 64 bit DMA addresses, if such architectures
> exist. Maybe memory.c could be made target independent one day.

We can make target_phys_addr_t 64 bit unconditionally.  The fraction of
deployments where both host and guest are 32 bits is dropping, and I
doubt the performance drop is noticable.

We were also planning to rename target_phys_addt_t to hw_addr.

But both of those are for another patch.  For now, AddressSpace follows
MemoryRegion, it's just a small abstraction on top.


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