From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47523) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VFIPZ-0002xp-Ap for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 02:42:32 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VFIPS-0001Fa-12 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 02:42:25 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f43.google.com ([209.85.220.43]:46451) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VFIPR-0001FU-RN for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 02:42:17 -0400 Received: by mail-pa0-f43.google.com with SMTP id hz10so1927005pad.30 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 23:42:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <52203EC2.7030801@ozlabs.ru> Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 16:42:10 +1000 From: Alexey Kardashevskiy MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1377170965-9905-1-git-send-email-aik@ozlabs.ru> <1377170965-9905-4-git-send-email-aik@ozlabs.ru> <1377703099.10408.71.camel@ul30vt.home> <521E9DF5.9080709@ozlabs.ru> <1377740545.10408.145.camel@ul30vt.home> <521EB16F.9010303@ozlabs.ru> <521EEA64.7000708@redhat.com> <521EF0FD.5080906@ozlabs.ru> <521F0B5C.3090102@redhat.com> <52203889.40307@ozlabs.ru> <52203E1C.4060208@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <52203E1C.4060208@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 3/3] vfio: Fix 128 bit handling List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Peter Maydell , Alex Williamson , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 08/30/2013 04:39 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 30/08/2013 08:15, Alexey Kardashevskiy ha scritto: >>>> What if you just merge the two series together? >> It will still be a function which can accept sections bigger than 2^64 and >> theoretically call int128_get64() and assert. I would think that every time >> when anyone calls int128_get64(), the value should be checked for <2^64. It >> is like division by zero :) > > I understood that int128_get64() would be called only for RAM sections, > not for IOMMUs (and RAM sections cannot be 2^64-bytes large). Is this > wrong? This is correct but for people who do not know when and in what state it is called, it can be confusing. Ok, I'll merge this with my vfio patches. -- Alexey