From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:43972) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TJmYI-0004lf-Uo for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 04 Oct 2012 10:38:21 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TJmXS-0002EX-Lo for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 04 Oct 2012 10:37:26 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:58097) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TJmXS-0002E8-DX for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 04 Oct 2012 10:36:34 -0400 Message-ID: <506D9EEC.7050605@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 16:36:28 +0200 From: Avi Kivity MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1349280245-16341-1-git-send-email-avi@redhat.com> <506D4534.4090000@redhat.com> <878vbmiap0.fsf@codemonkey.ws> In-Reply-To: <878vbmiap0.fsf@codemonkey.ws> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC v1 00/22] Integrate DMA into the memory API List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: Blue Swirl , Paolo Bonzini , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, liu ping fan On 10/04/2012 04:16 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > Paolo Bonzini writes: > >> Il 03/10/2012 18:03, Avi Kivity ha scritto: >>> Most of the work on the memory API focused on memory access targets - the memory regions >>> and how they are composed into an address space. This patchset tackles the initator >>> side of the question - how to originate accesses. >>> >>> The AddressSpace object, is exported to users and becomes the representation of an >>> initiator. Each address space describes the paths from some point in the system >>> (a device or cpu) to the devices reachable from that initiator. >>> >>> As an example, the API is used to support PCI_COMMAND_MASTER bit. >> >> Very nice, IMHO patches 1-18 should get in soon. They are a useful >> cleanup on their own. > > Yup, other than a few minor cosmetics, the series is a very nice > cleanup. > > I think this probably gets us fairly close to being able to write unit > tests for the memory layer too which is really nice. It still hardcodes the call to address_space_init_dispatch(). But I guess we don't have to be purists and we can have the test framework supply an alternate version of this function. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function